| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
03 Nov 2004 03:02:01 PM |
| Object: |
OT: Ok, now, who didn't bother to vote? |
I almost said "fuckit" because they had changed the districts/polling
place assignments. I went to the wrong one, got home and found the
correction notice, and went and waited 40 minutes - then voted.
My state had Kerry way in the lead but I took time and voted. In line,
starved, but I voted.
On the radio, they said Bush won by 3.5 million popular votes. Mine
was not one of them. At least I retain my complaining rights.
Yeah I know it's the electorate that counts.
I feel sorry for those who were going to vote for Kerry but decided
not to bother. Could there be 3,500,001 of them distributed among the
electorate?
And, for those who voted for "other" - pity. You could have helped
save us.
drift
.
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Ok, now, who didn't bother to vote? |
11 Nov 2004 09:51:05 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 22:14:25 -0800, johac <jhachm@ixpres.com> wrote:
In article <edk4p0t369hvigiadprhhtda9ko4u0fgb9@4ax.com>,
stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
On Mon, 08 Nov 2004 22:24:10 -0800, johac <jhachm@ixpres.com> wrote:
In article <sp8vo0loj39j6hhpm37c3ukjbleh69i4eq@4ax.com>,
stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
[]
I flip him off on a daily basis.
I have to be careful, I don't want the neighbors to hear the lurid
imprecations which I roar every time his vile, grinning, smirking,
drooling, monkey face befouls my TV screen. Then again, they're probably
cussin' him out too.
I've been ignoring the boob tube for years.
I've given up on national network news for a long time now. I still tune
in the local news to get weather and traffic. The only news show that I
watch more or less regularly is the BBC World News on PBS. Except for an
occasional special on PBS or occasionally the History Channel, I could
throw the damn thing out the window.
Weather, I get off the net and traffic isn't a problem.
--
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Hello, theocracy with a fundamentalist US Supreme
Court who will ensure church and state are joined
at the hip like clergy and altar boys.
America 1776-Jan 2001 RIP
.
|
|
|
| User: "johac" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Ok, now, who didn't bother to vote? |
12 Nov 2004 12:28:11 AM |
|
|
In article <ai27p01hgh4osao06ms6hd8n10jaig38dj@4ax.com>,
stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 22:14:25 -0800, johac <jhachm@ixpres.com> wrote:
In article <edk4p0t369hvigiadprhhtda9ko4u0fgb9@4ax.com>,
stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
On Mon, 08 Nov 2004 22:24:10 -0800, johac <jhachm@ixpres.com> wrote:
In article <sp8vo0loj39j6hhpm37c3ukjbleh69i4eq@4ax.com>,
stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
[]
I flip him off on a daily basis.
I have to be careful, I don't want the neighbors to hear the lurid
imprecations which I roar every time his vile, grinning, smirking,
drooling, monkey face befouls my TV screen. Then again, they're probably
cussin' him out too.
I've been ignoring the boob tube for years.
I've given up on national network news for a long time now. I still tune
in the local news to get weather and traffic. The only news show that I
watch more or less regularly is the BBC World News on PBS. Except for an
occasional special on PBS or occasionally the History Channel, I could
throw the damn thing out the window.
Weather, I get off the net and traffic isn't a problem.
True, but in the morning when I'm rushing to get dressed, eat breakfast,
make my lunch, and try to find that frickin' report that I was supposed
to bring into work today, the TV or the radio are a help as I can listen
in while trying to complete my mad morning rush out the door. Also in
the car, I listen to NPR radio.
--
John Hachmann aa #1782
Which raises the question: Can a people that believes more fervently
in theVirgin Birth than in evolution still be called an Enlightened
nation?-Garry Wills, New York Times 11/04/04
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Ok, now, who didn't bother to vote? |
10 Nov 2004 06:08:36 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 09:37:03 -0800, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
On Mon, 08 Nov 2004 22:24:10 -0800, johac <jhachm@ixpres.com> wrote:
In article <sp8vo0loj39j6hhpm37c3ukjbleh69i4eq@4ax.com>,
stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
On Sat, 06 Nov 2004 23:44:04 -0800, johac <jhachm@ixpres.com> wrote:
In article <95vqo0pbhj2hh2u8nu7d0ukkangdp88rk3@4ax.com>,
stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
On Thu, 04 Nov 2004 22:42:42 -0800, johac <jhachm@ixpres.com> wrote:
In article <13clo09qv7kcpuvilclr7b3kb9lgaaokci@4ax.com>,
wrote:
[]
I regret the apathy of my younger years - a message to those in their
twenties, go vote! I wish I took it seriously back then.
But we get to vote *each year* : lesser offices, yes, but we can try
to weed out the would be theocrats at *every* level.
Right on! One way to stop Bush is to try to get more reasonable people,
Democrats and moderate Republicans, into Congress. The vote in 2006 is
absolutely critical! Vote, dammit!
When the game is rigged there's little point in playing.
Maybe, but it felt good flipping Bush off.
I flip him off on a daily basis.
I have to be careful, I don't want the neighbors to hear the lurid
imprecations which I roar every time his vile, grinning, smirking,
drooling, monkey face befouls my TV screen. Then again, they're probably
cussin' him out too.
I've been ignoring the boob tube for years.
Me too. Except I have a complete collection of Twilight Zone tapes,
from a distributor, not taped off cable. (Schulze) they have DVD's
too, the tapes cost $650 or so and must have been copied directly from
the master - they are much clearer than I've ever seen it on TV and
there's footage that was missed during commercials. Original CBS logos
at fade in and out.
And some "Red Dwarf" episodes, too.
drift
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Ok, now, who didn't bother to vote? |
11 Nov 2004 09:49:15 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 19:08:36 -0500, wrote:
On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 09:37:03 -0800, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
[]
I've been ignoring the boob tube for years.
Me too. Except I have a complete collection of Twilight Zone tapes,
from a distributor, not taped off cable. (Schulze) they have DVD's
too, the tapes cost $650 or so and must have been copied directly from
the master - they are much clearer than I've ever seen it on TV and
there's footage that was missed during commercials. Original CBS logos
at fade in and out.
And some "Red Dwarf" episodes, too.
Never seen it.
--
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Hello, theocracy with a fundamentalist US Supreme
Court who will ensure church and state are joined
at the hip like clergy and altar boys.
America 1776-Jan 2001 RIP
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Ok, now, who didn't bother to vote? |
11 Nov 2004 06:36:24 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 11 Nov 2004 07:49:15 -0800, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 19:08:36 -0500, wrote:
On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 09:37:03 -0800, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
[]
I've been ignoring the boob tube for years.
Me too. Except I have a complete collection of Twilight Zone tapes,
from a distributor, not taped off cable. (Schulze) they have DVD's
too, the tapes cost $650 or so and must have been copied directly from
the master - they are much clearer than I've ever seen it on TV and
there's footage that was missed during commercials. Original CBS logos
at fade in and out.
And some "Red Dwarf" episodes, too.
Never seen it.
BBC.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/comedy/reddwarf/article/history.shtml
Hilarious. Three guys and an android on a spaceship who's actions,
travel, and antics are truly out of this world. A spoof on shows like
Star Trek. Quite well carried out, I might add!!
Diverse jealousies, desires, lusts, fears, emotions and scifi - you
name it - it is all brilliant.
drift
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Ok, now, who didn't bother to vote? |
13 Nov 2004 11:57:59 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 11 Nov 2004 19:36:24 -0500, wrote:
On Thu, 11 Nov 2004 07:49:15 -0800, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 19:08:36 -0500, wrote:
On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 09:37:03 -0800, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
[]
I've been ignoring the boob tube for years.
Me too. Except I have a complete collection of Twilight Zone tapes,
from a distributor, not taped off cable. (Schulze) they have DVD's
too, the tapes cost $650 or so and must have been copied directly from
the master - they are much clearer than I've ever seen it on TV and
there's footage that was missed during commercials. Original CBS logos
at fade in and out.
And some "Red Dwarf" episodes, too.
Never seen it.
BBC.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/comedy/reddwarf/article/history.shtml
Hilarious. Three guys and an android on a spaceship who's actions,
travel, and antics are truly out of this world. A spoof on shows like
Star Trek. Quite well carried out, I might add!!
Diverse jealousies, desires, lusts, fears, emotions and scifi - you
name it - it is all brilliant.
Try "Galaxina" with Dorothy Stratton circa 1980.
--
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Hello, theocracy with a fundamentalist US Supreme
Court who will ensure church and state are joined
at the hip like clergy and altar boys.
America 1776-Jan 2001 RIP
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Ok, now, who didn't bother to vote? |
11 Nov 2004 10:44:06 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 11 Nov 2004 07:49:15 -0800, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
And some "Red Dwarf" episodes, too.
Never seen it.
A wonderfully crazy show.
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Ok, now, who didn't bother to vote? |
13 Nov 2004 11:57:24 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 11 Nov 2004 16:44:06 GMT, Christopher A. Lee
<calee@optonline.net> wrote:
On Thu, 11 Nov 2004 07:49:15 -0800, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
And some "Red Dwarf" episodes, too.
Never seen it.
A wonderfully crazy show.
I've heard that.
--
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Hello, theocracy with a fundamentalist US Supreme
Court who will ensure church and state are joined
at the hip like clergy and altar boys.
America 1776-Jan 2001 RIP
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Ok, now, who didn't bother to vote? |
06 Nov 2004 10:28:21 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 06 Nov 2004 17:39:31 -0800, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
On Thu, 04 Nov 2004 22:42:42 -0800, johac <jhachm@ixpres.com> wrote:
In article <13clo09qv7kcpuvilclr7b3kb9lgaaokci@4ax.com>,
wrote:
On Wed, 03 Nov 2004 23:23:59 -0800, johac <jhachm@ixpres.com> wrote:
In article <d3hio05cidr3ah2427e5r9v0h9abk77uvm@4ax.com>,
wrote:
I almost said "fuckit" because they had changed the districts/polling
place assignments. I went to the wrong one, got home and found the
correction notice, and went and waited 40 minutes - then voted.
My state had Kerry way in the lead but I took time and voted. In line,
starved, but I voted.
On the radio, they said Bush won by 3.5 million popular votes. Mine
was not one of them. At least I retain my complaining rights.
Yeah I know it's the electorate that counts.
I feel sorry for those who were going to vote for Kerry but decided
not to bother. Could there be 3,500,001 of them distributed among the
electorate?
According to some surveys, almost 70% voted, that means that approx. 30%
didn't. If the population is approx. 250 million (I think it might be
bigger now) 30% is 75 million. If we can assume that at least half of
those are over 18 that's about 35 million. Now even assuming that half
can't vote because of sickness, being in jail, or having non-citizen
status and including other valid reasons for not voting, that would
bring it to 17-18 million. Now assuming that half of those would vote
for Kerry, that would be about 9 million votes, or three times the
required number.
Lazy bastards.
I regret the apathy of my younger years - a message to those in their
twenties, go vote! I wish I took it seriously back then.
But we get to vote *each year* : lesser offices, yes, but we can try
to weed out the would be theocrats at *every* level.
Right on! One way to stop Bush is to try to get more reasonable people,
Democrats and moderate Republicans, into Congress. The vote in 2006 is
absolutely critical! Vote, dammit!
When the game is rigged there's little point in playing.
We can't give up. Complacency is what got us in the mess.
drift
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Ok, now, who didn't bother to vote? |
08 Nov 2004 10:47:48 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 06 Nov 2004 23:28:21 -0500, wrote:
On Sat, 06 Nov 2004 17:39:31 -0800, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
On Thu, 04 Nov 2004 22:42:42 -0800, johac <jhachm@ixpres.com> wrote:
In article <13clo09qv7kcpuvilclr7b3kb9lgaaokci@4ax.com>,
wrote:
On Wed, 03 Nov 2004 23:23:59 -0800, johac <jhachm@ixpres.com> wrote:
In article <d3hio05cidr3ah2427e5r9v0h9abk77uvm@4ax.com>,
wrote:
I almost said "fuckit" because they had changed the districts/polling
place assignments. I went to the wrong one, got home and found the
correction notice, and went and waited 40 minutes - then voted.
My state had Kerry way in the lead but I took time and voted. In line,
starved, but I voted.
On the radio, they said Bush won by 3.5 million popular votes. Mine
was not one of them. At least I retain my complaining rights.
Yeah I know it's the electorate that counts.
I feel sorry for those who were going to vote for Kerry but decided
not to bother. Could there be 3,500,001 of them distributed among the
electorate?
According to some surveys, almost 70% voted, that means that approx. 30%
didn't. If the population is approx. 250 million (I think it might be
bigger now) 30% is 75 million. If we can assume that at least half of
those are over 18 that's about 35 million. Now even assuming that half
can't vote because of sickness, being in jail, or having non-citizen
status and including other valid reasons for not voting, that would
bring it to 17-18 million. Now assuming that half of those would vote
for Kerry, that would be about 9 million votes, or three times the
required number.
Lazy bastards.
I regret the apathy of my younger years - a message to those in their
twenties, go vote! I wish I took it seriously back then.
But we get to vote *each year* : lesser offices, yes, but we can try
to weed out the would be theocrats at *every* level.
Right on! One way to stop Bush is to try to get more reasonable people,
Democrats and moderate Republicans, into Congress. The vote in 2006 is
absolutely critical! Vote, dammit!
When the game is rigged there's little point in playing.
We can't give up. Complacency is what got us in the mess.
Who said 'give up?' The 'election avenue' is rigged. So, I didn't
play that game.
drift
--
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Hello, theocracy with a fundamentalist US Supreme
Court who will ensure church and state are joined
at the hip like clergy and altar boys.
America 1776-Jan 2001 RIP
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Ok, now, who didn't bother to vote? |
04 Nov 2004 02:18:05 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 03 Nov 2004 23:23:59 -0800, johac <jhachm@ixpres.com> wrote:
In article <d3hio05cidr3ah2427e5r9v0h9abk77uvm@4ax.com>,
wrote:
I almost said "fuckit" because they had changed the districts/polling
place assignments. I went to the wrong one, got home and found the
correction notice, and went and waited 40 minutes - then voted.
My state had Kerry way in the lead but I took time and voted. In line,
starved, but I voted.
On the radio, they said Bush won by 3.5 million popular votes. Mine
was not one of them. At least I retain my complaining rights.
Yeah I know it's the electorate that counts.
I feel sorry for those who were going to vote for Kerry but decided
not to bother. Could there be 3,500,001 of them distributed among the
electorate?
According to some surveys, almost 70% voted, that means that approx. 30%
didn't. If the population is approx. 250 million (I think it might be
bigger now) 30% is 75 million. If we can assume that at least half of
those are over 18 that's about 35 million. Now even assuming that half
can't vote because of sickness, being in jail, or having non-citizen
status and including other valid reasons for not voting, that would
bring it to 17-18 million. Now assuming that half of those would vote
for Kerry, that would be about 9 million votes, or three times the
required number.
Lazy bastards.
Nope. There isn't a single person among the political sacks of *****
that gives a flying ***** about the Constitution they've sworn to
defend and uphold.
Couple that with the blatant stacking of the decks by Diebold and the
Repugnicans and you've got, in effect, Stalinist era voting. Its now
a meaningless ritual and I've got productive things to do.
--
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Hello, theocracy with a fundamentalist US Supreme
Court who will ensure church and state are joined
at the hip like clergy and altar boys.
America 1776-Jan 2001 RIP
.
|
|
|
| User: "johac" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Ok, now, who didn't bother to vote? |
06 Nov 2004 02:08:46 AM |
|
|
In article <i83lo0pd6j5bh016dat4gl633m63mk2e92@4ax.com>,
stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
On Wed, 03 Nov 2004 23:23:59 -0800, johac <jhachm@ixpres.com> wrote:
In article <d3hio05cidr3ah2427e5r9v0h9abk77uvm@4ax.com>,
wrote:
I almost said "fuckit" because they had changed the districts/polling
place assignments. I went to the wrong one, got home and found the
correction notice, and went and waited 40 minutes - then voted.
My state had Kerry way in the lead but I took time and voted. In line,
starved, but I voted.
On the radio, they said Bush won by 3.5 million popular votes. Mine
was not one of them. At least I retain my complaining rights.
Yeah I know it's the electorate that counts.
I feel sorry for those who were going to vote for Kerry but decided
not to bother. Could there be 3,500,001 of them distributed among the
electorate?
According to some surveys, almost 70% voted, that means that approx. 30%
didn't. If the population is approx. 250 million (I think it might be
bigger now) 30% is 75 million. If we can assume that at least half of
those are over 18 that's about 35 million. Now even assuming that half
can't vote because of sickness, being in jail, or having non-citizen
status and including other valid reasons for not voting, that would
bring it to 17-18 million. Now assuming that half of those would vote
for Kerry, that would be about 9 million votes, or three times the
required number.
Lazy bastards.
Nope. There isn't a single person among the political sacks of *****
that gives a flying ***** about the Constitution they've sworn to
defend and uphold.
Couple that with the blatant stacking of the decks by Diebold and the
Repugnicans and you've got, in effect, Stalinist era voting. Its now
a meaningless ritual and I've got productive things to do.
You may be right, Stoney, perhaps resistance is futile, but I would like
to t least get a few kicks in before they overwhelm me.
The thought of Dubya appointing two, or three, or maybe even four
justices to the Supreme Court terrifies me.
--
John Hachmann aa #1782
We lost a battle. The war goes on.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Ok, now, who didn't bother to vote? |
06 Nov 2004 03:56:06 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 06 Nov 2004 00:08:46 -0800, johac <jhachm@ixpres.com> wrote:
In article <i83lo0pd6j5bh016dat4gl633m63mk2e92@4ax.com>,
stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
On Wed, 03 Nov 2004 23:23:59 -0800, johac <jhachm@ixpres.com> wrote:
In article <d3hio05cidr3ah2427e5r9v0h9abk77uvm@4ax.com>,
wrote:
I almost said "fuckit" because they had changed the districts/polling
place assignments. I went to the wrong one, got home and found the
correction notice, and went and waited 40 minutes - then voted.
My state had Kerry way in the lead but I took time and voted. In line,
starved, but I voted.
On the radio, they said Bush won by 3.5 million popular votes. Mine
was not one of them. At least I retain my complaining rights.
Yeah I know it's the electorate that counts.
I feel sorry for those who were going to vote for Kerry but decided
not to bother. Could there be 3,500,001 of them distributed among the
electorate?
According to some surveys, almost 70% voted, that means that approx. 30%
didn't. If the population is approx. 250 million (I think it might be
bigger now) 30% is 75 million. If we can assume that at least half of
those are over 18 that's about 35 million. Now even assuming that half
can't vote because of sickness, being in jail, or having non-citizen
status and including other valid reasons for not voting, that would
bring it to 17-18 million. Now assuming that half of those would vote
for Kerry, that would be about 9 million votes, or three times the
required number.
Lazy bastards.
Nope. There isn't a single person among the political sacks of *****
that gives a flying ***** about the Constitution they've sworn to
defend and uphold.
Couple that with the blatant stacking of the decks by Diebold and the
Repugnicans and you've got, in effect, Stalinist era voting. Its now
a meaningless ritual and I've got productive things to do.
You may be right, Stoney, perhaps resistance is futile, but I would like
to t least get a few kicks in before they overwhelm me.
The thought of Dubya appointing two, or three, or maybe even four
justices to the Supreme Court terrifies me.
I'm going to resist. I'll die at the end of my life anyway, and I
don't care how. As long as it's for something good.
If there *is* something after life how come nobody has shown it to us?
I think there is but it has nothing to do with any religion known to
us at all.
No god but something that goes forward, into another life, not
necessarily on this planet or solar system. A trail of DNA perhaps.
With my luck I'd become a wasp in a Raid factory.
drift
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Ok, now, who didn't bother to vote? |
06 Nov 2004 03:45:54 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 06 Nov 2004 00:08:46 -0800, johac <jhachm@ixpres.com> wrote:
In article <i83lo0pd6j5bh016dat4gl633m63mk2e92@4ax.com>,
stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
On Wed, 03 Nov 2004 23:23:59 -0800, johac <jhachm@ixpres.com> wrote:
In article <d3hio05cidr3ah2427e5r9v0h9abk77uvm@4ax.com>,
wrote:
I almost said "fuckit" because they had changed the districts/polling
place assignments. I went to the wrong one, got home and found the
correction notice, and went and waited 40 minutes - then voted.
My state had Kerry way in the lead but I took time and voted. In line,
starved, but I voted.
On the radio, they said Bush won by 3.5 million popular votes. Mine
was not one of them. At least I retain my complaining rights.
Yeah I know it's the electorate that counts.
I feel sorry for those who were going to vote for Kerry but decided
not to bother. Could there be 3,500,001 of them distributed among the
electorate?
According to some surveys, almost 70% voted, that means that approx. 30%
didn't. If the population is approx. 250 million (I think it might be
bigger now) 30% is 75 million. If we can assume that at least half of
those are over 18 that's about 35 million. Now even assuming that half
can't vote because of sickness, being in jail, or having non-citizen
status and including other valid reasons for not voting, that would
bring it to 17-18 million. Now assuming that half of those would vote
for Kerry, that would be about 9 million votes, or three times the
required number.
Lazy bastards.
Nope. There isn't a single person among the political sacks of *****
that gives a flying ***** about the Constitution they've sworn to
defend and uphold.
Couple that with the blatant stacking of the decks by Diebold and the
Repugnicans and you've got, in effect, Stalinist era voting. Its now
a meaningless ritual and I've got productive things to do.
You may be right, Stoney, perhaps resistance is futile, but I would like
to t least get a few kicks in before they overwhelm me.
The thought of Dubya appointing two, or three, or maybe even four
justices to the Supreme Court terrifies me.
We *MUST* go on. Stoney, I'm surprised at you - I think you have more
fortitude in you than to give up, I think you would fight to the
finish. I will. Partly from listening to you. Carry on regardless!!
Fight - lose less and maybe win.
Not fight, lose it all.
Do you have to think?
drift
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Ok, now, who didn't bother to vote? |
08 Nov 2004 10:25:25 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 06 Nov 2004 16:45:54 -0500, wrote:
On Sat, 06 Nov 2004 00:08:46 -0800, johac <jhachm@ixpres.com> wrote:
In article <i83lo0pd6j5bh016dat4gl633m63mk2e92@4ax.com>,
stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
On Wed, 03 Nov 2004 23:23:59 -0800, johac <jhachm@ixpres.com> wrote:
In article <d3hio05cidr3ah2427e5r9v0h9abk77uvm@4ax.com>,
wrote:
I almost said "fuckit" because they had changed the districts/polling
place assignments. I went to the wrong one, got home and found the
correction notice, and went and waited 40 minutes - then voted.
My state had Kerry way in the lead but I took time and voted. In line,
starved, but I voted.
On the radio, they said Bush won by 3.5 million popular votes. Mine
was not one of them. At least I retain my complaining rights.
Yeah I know it's the electorate that counts.
I feel sorry for those who were going to vote for Kerry but decided
not to bother. Could there be 3,500,001 of them distributed among the
electorate?
According to some surveys, almost 70% voted, that means that approx. 30%
didn't. If the population is approx. 250 million (I think it might be
bigger now) 30% is 75 million. If we can assume that at least half of
those are over 18 that's about 35 million. Now even assuming that half
can't vote because of sickness, being in jail, or having non-citizen
status and including other valid reasons for not voting, that would
bring it to 17-18 million. Now assuming that half of those would vote
for Kerry, that would be about 9 million votes, or three times the
required number.
Lazy bastards.
Nope. There isn't a single person among the political sacks of *****
that gives a flying ***** about the Constitution they've sworn to
defend and uphold.
Couple that with the blatant stacking of the decks by Diebold and the
Repugnicans and you've got, in effect, Stalinist era voting. Its now
a meaningless ritual and I've got productive things to do.
You may be right, Stoney, perhaps resistance is futile, but I would like
to t least get a few kicks in before they overwhelm me.
The thought of Dubya appointing two, or three, or maybe even four
justices to the Supreme Court terrifies me.
We *MUST* go on. Stoney, I'm surprised at you - I think you have more
fortitude in you than to give up, I think you would fight to the
finish. I will. Partly from listening to you. Carry on regardless!!
I am fighting in the only way left-words.
Fight - lose less and maybe win.
Not fight, lose it all.
Do you have to think?
drift
--
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Hello, theocracy with a fundamentalist US Supreme
Court who will ensure church and state are joined
at the hip like clergy and altar boys.
America 1776-Jan 2001 RIP
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Ok, now, who didn't bother to vote? |
06 Nov 2004 07:38:20 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 06 Nov 2004 00:08:46 -0800, johac <jhachm@ixpres.com> wrote:
In article <i83lo0pd6j5bh016dat4gl633m63mk2e92@4ax.com>,
stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
On Wed, 03 Nov 2004 23:23:59 -0800, johac <jhachm@ixpres.com> wrote:
In article <d3hio05cidr3ah2427e5r9v0h9abk77uvm@4ax.com>,
wrote:
I almost said "fuckit" because they had changed the districts/polling
place assignments. I went to the wrong one, got home and found the
correction notice, and went and waited 40 minutes - then voted.
My state had Kerry way in the lead but I took time and voted. In line,
starved, but I voted.
On the radio, they said Bush won by 3.5 million popular votes. Mine
was not one of them. At least I retain my complaining rights.
Yeah I know it's the electorate that counts.
I feel sorry for those who were going to vote for Kerry but decided
not to bother. Could there be 3,500,001 of them distributed among the
electorate?
According to some surveys, almost 70% voted, that means that approx. 30%
didn't. If the population is approx. 250 million (I think it might be
bigger now) 30% is 75 million. If we can assume that at least half of
those are over 18 that's about 35 million. Now even assuming that half
can't vote because of sickness, being in jail, or having non-citizen
status and including other valid reasons for not voting, that would
bring it to 17-18 million. Now assuming that half of those would vote
for Kerry, that would be about 9 million votes, or three times the
required number.
Lazy bastards.
Nope. There isn't a single person among the political sacks of *****
that gives a flying ***** about the Constitution they've sworn to
defend and uphold.
Couple that with the blatant stacking of the decks by Diebold and the
Repugnicans and you've got, in effect, Stalinist era voting. Its now
a meaningless ritual and I've got productive things to do.
You may be right, Stoney, perhaps resistance is futile, but I would like
to t least get a few kicks in before they overwhelm me.
Where's the 'kick' if the 'kerry' vote is registerd as 'bush' or
doesn't register at all?
The thought of Dubya appointing two, or three, or maybe even four
justices to the Supreme Court terrifies me.
As it does anyone who can think.
--
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Hello, theocracy with a fundamentalist US Supreme
Court who will ensure church and state are joined
at the hip like clergy and altar boys.
America 1776-Jan 2001 RIP
.
|
|
|
| User: "johac" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Ok, now, who didn't bother to vote? |
07 Nov 2004 01:42:24 AM |
|
|
In article <gvuqo0p7gf00g9b6oe4ifm8i838f185fv1@4ax.com>,
stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
On Sat, 06 Nov 2004 00:08:46 -0800, johac <jhachm@ixpres.com> wrote:
In article <i83lo0pd6j5bh016dat4gl633m63mk2e92@4ax.com>,
stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
On Wed, 03 Nov 2004 23:23:59 -0800, johac <jhachm@ixpres.com> wrote:
In article <d3hio05cidr3ah2427e5r9v0h9abk77uvm@4ax.com>,
wrote:
I almost said "fuckit" because they had changed the districts/polling
place assignments. I went to the wrong one, got home and found the
correction notice, and went and waited 40 minutes - then voted.
My state had Kerry way in the lead but I took time and voted. In line,
starved, but I voted.
On the radio, they said Bush won by 3.5 million popular votes. Mine
was not one of them. At least I retain my complaining rights.
Yeah I know it's the electorate that counts.
I feel sorry for those who were going to vote for Kerry but decided
not to bother. Could there be 3,500,001 of them distributed among the
electorate?
According to some surveys, almost 70% voted, that means that approx. 30%
didn't. If the population is approx. 250 million (I think it might be
bigger now) 30% is 75 million. If we can assume that at least half of
those are over 18 that's about 35 million. Now even assuming that half
can't vote because of sickness, being in jail, or having non-citizen
status and including other valid reasons for not voting, that would
bring it to 17-18 million. Now assuming that half of those would vote
for Kerry, that would be about 9 million votes, or three times the
required number.
Lazy bastards.
Nope. There isn't a single person among the political sacks of *****
that gives a flying ***** about the Constitution they've sworn to
defend and uphold.
Couple that with the blatant stacking of the decks by Diebold and the
Repugnicans and you've got, in effect, Stalinist era voting. Its now
a meaningless ritual and I've got productive things to do.
You may be right, Stoney, perhaps resistance is futile, but I would like
to t least get a few kicks in before they overwhelm me.
Where's the 'kick' if the 'kerry' vote is registerd as 'bush' or
doesn't register at all?
At least I know that i didn't vote for the brainless chimp. My precinct
used Optiscan machines this time. Whether or not the reader tallied my
vote accurately, I cannot say, but the ballot with the circles that I
filled in was retained and would be available for a recount.
San Diego county used the touch screen machines in the primaries last
spring, but decided that they were too much trouble so they shitcannned
the lot.
The thought of Dubya appointing two, or three, or maybe even four
justices to the Supreme Court terrifies me.
As it does anyone who can think.
The thought of all these fundies marching to the polls to vote for
Dumbya reminds me of one of those "Dawn of the Dead" movies.
--
John Hachmann aa #1782
We lost a battle. The war goes on.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Don Kresch" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Ok, now, who didn't bother to vote? |
07 Nov 2004 08:28:31 AM |
|
|
I didn't bother to vote.
Why?
Voting gives the government my tacit consent to govern me.
I do not give my consent to be governed at all, period. I will never
give such consent.
No government is legitimate, and no government ever will be.
Don
---
aa #51, Knight of BAAWA, DNRC o-, Member of the [H]orde
Atheist Minister for St. Dogbert.
"No being is so important that he can usurp the rights of another"
Picard to Data/Graves "The Schizoid Man"
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Ok, now, who didn't bother to vote? |
08 Nov 2004 10:39:12 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 06 Nov 2004 23:42:24 -0800, johac <jhachm@ixpres.com> wrote:
In article <gvuqo0p7gf00g9b6oe4ifm8i838f185fv1@4ax.com>,
stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
On Sat, 06 Nov 2004 00:08:46 -0800, johac <jhachm@ixpres.com> wrote:
In article <i83lo0pd6j5bh016dat4gl633m63mk2e92@4ax.com>,
stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
On Wed, 03 Nov 2004 23:23:59 -0800, johac <jhachm@ixpres.com> wrote:
In article <d3hio05cidr3ah2427e5r9v0h9abk77uvm@4ax.com>,
wrote:
I almost said "fuckit" because they had changed the districts/polling
place assignments. I went to the wrong one, got home and found the
correction notice, and went and waited 40 minutes - then voted.
My state had Kerry way in the lead but I took time and voted. In line,
starved, but I voted.
On the radio, they said Bush won by 3.5 million popular votes. Mine
was not one of them. At least I retain my complaining rights.
Yeah I know it's the electorate that counts.
I feel sorry for those who were going to vote for Kerry but decided
not to bother. Could there be 3,500,001 of them distributed among the
electorate?
According to some surveys, almost 70% voted, that means that approx. 30%
didn't. If the population is approx. 250 million (I think it might be
bigger now) 30% is 75 million. If we can assume that at least half of
those are over 18 that's about 35 million. Now even assuming that half
can't vote because of sickness, being in jail, or having non-citizen
status and including other valid reasons for not voting, that would
bring it to 17-18 million. Now assuming that half of those would vote
for Kerry, that would be about 9 million votes, or three times the
required number.
Lazy bastards.
Nope. There isn't a single person among the political sacks of *****
that gives a flying ***** about the Constitution they've sworn to
defend and uphold.
Couple that with the blatant stacking of the decks by Diebold and the
Repugnicans and you've got, in effect, Stalinist era voting. Its now
a meaningless ritual and I've got productive things to do.
You may be right, Stoney, perhaps resistance is futile, but I would like
to t least get a few kicks in before they overwhelm me.
Where's the 'kick' if the 'kerry' vote is registerd as 'bush' or
doesn't register at all?
At least I know that i didn't vote for the brainless chimp. My precinct
used Optiscan machines this time. Whether or not the reader tallied my
vote accurately, I cannot say, but the ballot with the circles that I
filled in was retained and would be available for a recount.
And I know I didn't vote for either bush or bush lite.
San Diego county used the touch screen machines in the primaries last
spring, but decided that they were too much trouble so they shitcannned
the lot.
The thought of Dubya appointing two, or three, or maybe even four
justices to the Supreme Court terrifies me.
As it does anyone who can think.
The thought of all these fundies marching to the polls to vote for
Dumbya reminds me of one of those "Dawn of the Dead" movies.
Good descriptor.
--
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Hello, theocracy with a fundamentalist US Supreme
Court who will ensure church and state are joined
at the hip like clergy and altar boys.
America 1776-Jan 2001 RIP
.
|
|
|
| User: "johac" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Ok, now, who didn't bother to vote? |
09 Nov 2004 12:29:10 AM |
|
|
In article <968vo0d46gevdv29kd0o3b15jbml57re3p@4ax.com>,
stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
On Sat, 06 Nov 2004 23:42:24 -0800, johac <jhachm@ixpres.com> wrote:
In article <gvuqo0p7gf00g9b6oe4ifm8i838f185fv1@4ax.com>,
stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
On Sat, 06 Nov 2004 00:08:46 -0800, johac <jhachm@ixpres.com> wrote:
In article <i83lo0pd6j5bh016dat4gl633m63mk2e92@4ax.com>,
stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
On Wed, 03 Nov 2004 23:23:59 -0800, johac <jhachm@ixpres.com> wrote:
In article <d3hio05cidr3ah2427e5r9v0h9abk77uvm@4ax.com>,
drift@lost.net
wrote:
I almost said "fuckit" because they had changed the
districts/polling
place assignments. I went to the wrong one, got home and found the
correction notice, and went and waited 40 minutes - then voted.
My state had Kerry way in the lead but I took time and voted. In
line,
starved, but I voted.
On the radio, they said Bush won by 3.5 million popular votes. Mine
was not one of them. At least I retain my complaining rights.
Yeah I know it's the electorate that counts.
I feel sorry for those who were going to vote for Kerry but decided
not to bother. Could there be 3,500,001 of them distributed among
the
electorate?
According to some surveys, almost 70% voted, that means that approx.
30%
didn't. If the population is approx. 250 million (I think it might be
bigger now) 30% is 75 million. If we can assume that at least half of
those are over 18 that's about 35 million. Now even assuming that half
can't vote because of sickness, being in jail, or having non-citizen
status and including other valid reasons for not voting, that would
bring it to 17-18 million. Now assuming that half of those would vote
for Kerry, that would be about 9 million votes, or three times the
required number.
Lazy bastards.
Nope. There isn't a single person among the political sacks of *****
that gives a flying ***** about the Constitution they've sworn to
defend and uphold.
Couple that with the blatant stacking of the decks by Diebold and the
Repugnicans and you've got, in effect, Stalinist era voting. Its now
a meaningless ritual and I've got productive things to do.
You may be right, Stoney, perhaps resistance is futile, but I would like
to t least get a few kicks in before they overwhelm me.
Where's the 'kick' if the 'kerry' vote is registerd as 'bush' or
doesn't register at all?
At least I know that i didn't vote for the brainless chimp. My precinct
used Optiscan machines this time. Whether or not the reader tallied my
vote accurately, I cannot say, but the ballot with the circles that I
filled in was retained and would be available for a recount.
And I know I didn't vote for either bush or bush lite.
True. It was not the best of choices this time. I don't know who the
Repubs will pick next time, but I hope that the Dems will find someone
better. On the other hand, I just may say, screw it, and vote third
party. This time it wouldn't have made any difference.
--
John Hachmann aa #1782
Which raises the question: Can a people that believes more fervently
in theVirgin Birth than in evolution still be called an Enlightened
nation?-Garry Wills, New York Times 11/04/04
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Dollar Bill" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Ok, now, who didn't bother to vote? |
04 Nov 2004 10:20:46 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 03 Nov 2004 16:02:01 -0500 in alt.atheism, defied the
status quo and scrawled upon the toilet stall:
I almost said "fuckit" because they had changed the districts/polling
place assignments. I went to the wrong one, got home and found the
correction notice, and went and waited 40 minutes - then voted.
My state had Kerry way in the lead but I took time and voted. In line,
starved, but I voted.
On the radio, they said Bush won by 3.5 million popular votes. Mine
was not one of them. At least I retain my complaining rights.
Yeah I know it's the electorate that counts.
I feel sorry for those who were going to vote for Kerry but decided
not to bother. Could there be 3,500,001 of them distributed among the
electorate?
From what I understand, yes. In the 18-25 age range. I never thought I'd hate
young people.
--
L8r,
Uncle Dollar Bill
"Opinions are like people - every ***** has one..."
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Ok, now, who didn't bother to vote? |
04 Nov 2004 08:12:52 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 05 Nov 2004 04:20:46 GMT, (Uncle
Dollar Bill) wrote:
On Wed, 03 Nov 2004 16:02:01 -0500 in alt.atheism, defied the
status quo and scrawled upon the toilet stall:
I almost said "fuckit" because they had changed the districts/polling
place assignments. I went to the wrong one, got home and found the
correction notice, and went and waited 40 minutes - then voted.
My state had Kerry way in the lead but I took time and voted. In line,
starved, but I voted.
On the radio, they said Bush won by 3.5 million popular votes. Mine
was not one of them. At least I retain my complaining rights.
Yeah I know it's the electorate that counts.
I feel sorry for those who were going to vote for Kerry but decided
not to bother. Could there be 3,500,001 of them distributed among the
electorate?
From what I understand, yes. In the 18-25 age range. I never thought I'd hate
young people.
If they make it back from the wars, mebbe they'll vote a little
differently in 2008.
drift
.
|
|
|
| User: "Apostate" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Ok, now, who didn't bother to vote? |
04 Nov 2004 09:21:30 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 04 Nov 2004 21:12:52 -0500, wrote:
On Fri, 05 Nov 2004 04:20:46 GMT, (Uncle
Dollar Bill) wrote:
On Wed, 03 Nov 2004 16:02:01 -0500 in alt.atheism, defied the
status quo and scrawled upon the toilet stall:
I almost said "fuckit" because they had changed the districts/polling
place assignments. I went to the wrong one, got home and found the
correction notice, and went and waited 40 minutes - then voted.
My state had Kerry way in the lead but I took time and voted. In line,
starved, but I voted.
On the radio, they said Bush won by 3.5 million popular votes. Mine
was not one of them. At least I retain my complaining rights.
Yeah I know it's the electorate that counts.
I feel sorry for those who were going to vote for Kerry but decided
not to bother. Could there be 3,500,001 of them distributed among the
electorate?
From what I understand, yes. In the 18-25 age range. I never thought I'd hate
young people.
If they make it back from the wars, mebbe they'll vote a little
differently in 2008.
drift
Meaning they'll have to pull the lever with their feet?
--
/Apostate
atheist #1931 I've found it!
BAAWA Knife AND SMASHer
EAC Supernumerary Deputy Director, Department of Redundancy Department
plonked by Lani_girl, first post; Billions Served!
I doubt, therefore I might be.
For e-mail, hold that tiger!
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Ok, now, who didn't bother to vote? |
04 Nov 2004 09:59:37 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 04 Nov 2004 22:21:30 -0500, Apostate
<Apostate.invalid@yeehaw.org> wrote:
On Thu, 04 Nov 2004 21:12:52 -0500, wrote:
On Fri, 05 Nov 2004 04:20:46 GMT, (Uncle
Dollar Bill) wrote:
On Wed, 03 Nov 2004 16:02:01 -0500 in alt.atheism, defied the
status quo and scrawled upon the toilet stall:
I almost said "fuckit" because they had changed the districts/polling
place assignments. I went to the wrong one, got home and found the
correction notice, and went and waited 40 minutes - then voted.
My state had Kerry way in the lead but I took time and voted. In line,
starved, but I voted.
On the radio, they said Bush won by 3.5 million popular votes. Mine
was not one of them. At least I retain my complaining rights.
Yeah I know it's the electorate that counts.
I feel sorry for those who were going to vote for Kerry but decided
not to bother. Could there be 3,500,001 of them distributed among the
electorate?
From what I understand, yes. In the 18-25 age range. I never thought I'd hate
young people.
If they make it back from the wars, mebbe they'll vote a little
differently in 2008.
drift
Meaning they'll have to pull the lever with their feet?
Maybe they will read minds by then. I *did hear of a man who was able
to move the mouse curser by thinking - I forgot if it was an implant
or a sensor on his head. It wasn't a joke - I think he was paralyzed.
Or maybe by then they'll live underground, in opulent bunkers, hogging
what's left of the oil, and nuke the rest of us. Then they'll kill
each other off with their sanctimonious holier than thou *****. Hey,
maybe I could write sci-fi!?!? Yep, instead of reaching up to their
god, they'll rot in their own self made "hell".
Hmmmmmm.....
drift
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Ok, now, who didn't bother to vote? |
04 Nov 2004 02:11:49 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 03 Nov 2004 16:02:01 -0500, wrote:
I almost said "fuckit" because they had changed the districts/polling
place assignments. I went to the wrong one, got home and found the
correction notice, and went and waited 40 minutes - then voted.
My state had Kerry way in the lead but I took time and voted. In line,
starved, but I voted.
On the radio, they said Bush won by 3.5 million popular votes. Mine
was not one of them. At least I retain my complaining rights.
Yeah I know it's the electorate that counts.
I feel sorry for those who were going to vote for Kerry but decided
not to bother. Could there be 3,500,001 of them distributed among the
electorate?
And, for those who voted for "other" - pity. You could have helped
save us.
No. The point spread was predetermined by Diebold.
--
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Hello, theocracy with a fundamentalist US Supreme
Court who will ensure church and state are joined
at the hip like clergy and altar boys.
America 1776-Jan 2001 RIP
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
