| 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: "johac" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Ok, now, who didn't bother to vote? |
04 Nov 2004 01:23:59 AM |
|
|
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.
And, for those who voted for "other" - pity. You could have helped
save us.
drift
--
John Hachmann aa #1782
-The ability to change one's mind, ideas, and opinions when confronted with
new facts is the sign of the rational and intelligent. The inability to do
so is the hallmark of the dimwitted and the fanatic. This applies not only
to science and philosophy, but also to politics.-
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Ok, now, who didn't bother to vote? |
04 Nov 2004 04:47:30 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.
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.
And, for those who voted for "other" - pity. You could have helped
save us.
drift
drift
.
|
|
|
| User: "johac" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Ok, now, who didn't bother to vote? |
05 Nov 2004 12:42:42 AM |
|
|
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!
--
John Hachmann aa #1782
Vive le Resistance!
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Ok, now, who didn't bother to vote? |
05 Nov 2004 04:58:05 PM |
|
|
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!
And how, John! If investigations are going to get anywhere, we must
vote in people who look askance at the present situation, in other
words, we the people must begin putting *our* people in to counter
*their* people.
Another sleeping giant has been jolted. Lots of good, grass roots
organizations will get busier, as lots of resistance through the
proper channels - writing to reps etc must take place.
If you don't like who's in, vote them out.
drift
.
|
|
|
| User: "johac" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Ok, now, who didn't bother to vote? |
06 Nov 2004 01:53:54 AM |
|
|
In article <qs0oo0990j7ro2djlk8bqm24pi3fosfj02@4ax.com>,
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!
And how, John! If investigations are going to get anywhere, we must
vote in people who look askance at the present situation, in other
words, we the people must begin putting *our* people in to counter
*their* people.
Another sleeping giant has been jolted. Lots of good, grass roots
organizations will get busier, as lots of resistance through the
proper channels - writing to reps etc must take place.
If you don't like who's in, vote them out.
They took our country from us, let's take it back!
drift
--
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 03:38:17 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 05 Nov 2004 23:53:54 -0800, johac <jhachm@ixpres.com> wrote:
In article <qs0oo0990j7ro2djlk8bqm24pi3fosfj02@4ax.com>,
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!
And how, John! If investigations are going to get anywhere, we must
vote in people who look askance at the present situation, in other
words, we the people must begin putting *our* people in to counter
*their* people.
Another sleeping giant has been jolted. Lots of good, grass roots
organizations will get busier, as lots of resistance through the
proper channels - writing to reps etc must take place.
If you don't like who's in, vote them out.
They took our country from us, let's take it back!
It'll be difficult, but we *must*. Don't snooze don't lose. The game
is afoot.
Lights, camera, *action* like we've never seen before.
See, we have a life, and allocate time to get involved. They don't
have a life: their existence is solely to follow their superstitions,
dedicating their life to converting us. And voting.
It's a call to all of us that we have a powerful, dangerous force to
deal with.
Let's *roll!!*
We are in a dire situation.
drift
drift
.
|
|
|
| User: "johac" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Ok, now, who didn't bother to vote? |
07 Nov 2004 01:50:46 AM |
|
|
In article <9fgqo0d8rp2fmq6i6qtg49e67ou8of9064@4ax.com>,
wrote:
On Fri, 05 Nov 2004 23:53:54 -0800, johac <jhachm@ixpres.com> wrote:
In article <qs0oo0990j7ro2djlk8bqm24pi3fosfj02@4ax.com>,
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!
And how, John! If investigations are going to get anywhere, we must
vote in people who look askance at the present situation, in other
words, we the people must begin putting *our* people in to counter
*their* people.
Another sleeping giant has been jolted. Lots of good, grass roots
organizations will get busier, as lots of resistance through the
proper channels - writing to reps etc must take place.
If you don't like who's in, vote them out.
They took our country from us, let's take it back!
It'll be difficult, but we *must*. Don't snooze don't lose. The game
is afoot.
Lights, camera, *action* like we've never seen before.
See, we have a life, and allocate time to get involved. They don't
have a life: their existence is solely to follow their superstitions,
dedicating their life to converting us. And voting.
It's a call to all of us that we have a powerful, dangerous force to
deal with.
We have a more powerful weapon. It's called the truth. All we have to do
is to get it out above the noise created by Fox news(?), AM talk radio.
as well as the hurricane of disinformation blowing out the government.
Let's *roll!!*
We are in a dire situation.
drift
drift
--
John Hachmann aa #1782
We lost a battle. The war goes on.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Ok, now, who didn't bother to vote? |
07 Nov 2004 01:49:53 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 06 Nov 2004 23:50:46 -0800, johac <jhachm@ixpres.com> wrote:
In article <9fgqo0d8rp2fmq6i6qtg49e67ou8of9064@4ax.com>,
wrote:
On Fri, 05 Nov 2004 23:53:54 -0800, johac <jhachm@ixpres.com> wrote:
In article <qs0oo0990j7ro2djlk8bqm24pi3fosfj02@4ax.com>,
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!
And how, John! If investigations are going to get anywhere, we must
vote in people who look askance at the present situation, in other
words, we the people must begin putting *our* people in to counter
*their* people.
Another sleeping giant has been jolted. Lots of good, grass roots
organizations will get busier, as lots of resistance through the
proper channels - writing to reps etc must take place.
If you don't like who's in, vote them out.
They took our country from us, let's take it back!
It'll be difficult, but we *must*. Don't snooze don't lose. The game
is afoot.
Lights, camera, *action* like we've never seen before.
See, we have a life, and allocate time to get involved. They don't
have a life: their existence is solely to follow their superstitions,
dedicating their life to converting us. And voting.
It's a call to all of us that we have a powerful, dangerous force to
deal with.
We have a more powerful weapon. It's called the truth. All we have to do
is to get it out above the noise created by Fox news(?), AM talk radio.
as well as the hurricane of disinformation blowing out the government.
Yep!
Let's *roll!!*
We are in a dire situation.
drift
drift
drift
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Ok, now, who didn't bother to vote? |
06 Nov 2004 07:40:28 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 05 Nov 2004 23:53:54 -0800, johac <jhachm@ixpres.com> wrote:
In article <qs0oo0990j7ro2djlk8bqm24pi3fosfj02@4ax.com>,
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!
And how, John! If investigations are going to get anywhere, we must
vote in people who look askance at the present situation, in other
words, we the people must begin putting *our* people in to counter
*their* people.
Another sleeping giant has been jolted. Lots of good, grass roots
organizations will get busier, as lots of resistance through the
proper channels - writing to reps etc must take place.
If you don't like who's in, vote them out.
They took our country from us, let's take it back!
Best stock up on firearms.
--
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 10:30:10 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 06 Nov 2004 17:40:28 -0800, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
On Fri, 05 Nov 2004 23:53:54 -0800, johac <jhachm@ixpres.com> wrote:
In article <qs0oo0990j7ro2djlk8bqm24pi3fosfj02@4ax.com>,
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!
And how, John! If investigations are going to get anywhere, we must
vote in people who look askance at the present situation, in other
words, we the people must begin putting *our* people in to counter
*their* people.
Another sleeping giant has been jolted. Lots of good, grass roots
organizations will get busier, as lots of resistance through the
proper channels - writing to reps etc must take place.
If you don't like who's in, vote them out.
They took our country from us, let's take it back!
Best stock up on firearms.
Civil war? Again? If needed, I'm willing.
drift
.
|
|
|
| User: "johac" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Ok, now, who didn't bother to vote? |
07 Nov 2004 01:46:54 AM |
|
|
In article <o49ro0dt817oc18sj8609jmm05b8g83t5q@4ax.com>,
wrote:
On Sat, 06 Nov 2004 17:40:28 -0800, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
On Fri, 05 Nov 2004 23:53:54 -0800, johac <jhachm@ixpres.com> wrote:
In article <qs0oo0990j7ro2djlk8bqm24pi3fosfj02@4ax.com>,
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!
And how, John! If investigations are going to get anywhere, we must
vote in people who look askance at the present situation, in other
words, we the people must begin putting *our* people in to counter
*their* people.
Another sleeping giant has been jolted. Lots of good, grass roots
organizations will get busier, as lots of resistance through the
proper channels - writing to reps etc must take place.
If you don't like who's in, vote them out.
They took our country from us, let's take it back!
Best stock up on firearms.
Civil war? Again? If needed, I'm willing.
drift
Where do you enlist? :-)
--
John Hachmann aa #1782
We lost a battle. The war goes on.
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Ok, now, who didn't bother to vote? |
08 Nov 2004 10:44:20 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 06 Nov 2004 23:46:54 -0800, johac <jhachm@ixpres.com> wrote:
In article <o49ro0dt817oc18sj8609jmm05b8g83t5q@4ax.com>,
wrote:
[]
If you don't like who's in, vote them out.
They took our country from us, let's take it back!
Best stock up on firearms.
Civil war? Again? If needed, I'm willing.
drift
Where do you enlist? :-)
Your nearest Gestapo office.... :)
--
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 12:15:32 AM |
|
|
In article <8i8vo05svfqdaks44idlli0tim43qtl646@4ax.com>,
stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
On Sat, 06 Nov 2004 23:46:54 -0800, johac <jhachm@ixpres.com> wrote:
In article <o49ro0dt817oc18sj8609jmm05b8g83t5q@4ax.com>,
wrote:
[]
If you don't like who's in, vote them out.
They took our country from us, let's take it back!
Best stock up on firearms.
Civil war? Again? If needed, I'm willing.
drift
Where do you enlist? :-)
Your nearest Gestapo office.... :)
I understand that they have a door to door pickup service. If you don't
go to them, they will come and get you. How considerate. :-/
--
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: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Ok, now, who didn't bother to vote? |
10 Nov 2004 11:36:08 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 08 Nov 2004 22:15:32 -0800, johac <jhachm@ixpres.com> wrote:
In article <8i8vo05svfqdaks44idlli0tim43qtl646@4ax.com>,
stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
On Sat, 06 Nov 2004 23:46:54 -0800, johac <jhachm@ixpres.com> wrote:
In article <o49ro0dt817oc18sj8609jmm05b8g83t5q@4ax.com>,
wrote:
[]
If you don't like who's in, vote them out.
They took our country from us, let's take it back!
Best stock up on firearms.
Civil war? Again? If needed, I'm willing.
drift
Where do you enlist? :-)
Your nearest Gestapo office.... :)
I understand that they have a door to door pickup service. If you don't
go to them, they will come and get you. How considerate. :-/
Indeed. That's both "compassionate conservatism" and "christian
love."
(I saw your sarcasm and raised)
--
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? |
11 Nov 2004 12:17:52 AM |
|
|
In article <jak4p01vma650q1blcd1elt7b2iuv70h53@4ax.com>,
stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
On Mon, 08 Nov 2004 22:15:32 -0800, johac <jhachm@ixpres.com> wrote:
In article <8i8vo05svfqdaks44idlli0tim43qtl646@4ax.com>,
stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
On Sat, 06 Nov 2004 23:46:54 -0800, johac <jhachm@ixpres.com> wrote:
In article <o49ro0dt817oc18sj8609jmm05b8g83t5q@4ax.com>,
wrote:
[]
If you don't like who's in, vote them out.
They took our country from us, let's take it back!
Best stock up on firearms.
Civil war? Again? If needed, I'm willing.
drift
Where do you enlist? :-)
Your nearest Gestapo office.... :)
I understand that they have a door to door pickup service. If you don't
go to them, they will come and get you. How considerate. :-/
Indeed. That's both "compassionate conservatism" and "christian
love."
(I saw your sarcasm and raised)
The government in the service of the people.
(call)
--
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: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Ok, now, who didn't bother to vote? |
11 Nov 2004 09:48:07 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 22:17:52 -0800, johac <jhachm@ixpres.com> wrote:
In article <jak4p01vma650q1blcd1elt7b2iuv70h53@4ax.com>,
stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
On Mon, 08 Nov 2004 22:15:32 -0800, johac <jhachm@ixpres.com> wrote:
In article <8i8vo05svfqdaks44idlli0tim43qtl646@4ax.com>,
stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
On Sat, 06 Nov 2004 23:46:54 -0800, johac <jhachm@ixpres.com> wrote:
In article <o49ro0dt817oc18sj8609jmm05b8g83t5q@4ax.com>,
wrote:
[]
If you don't like who's in, vote them out.
They took our country from us, let's take it back!
Best stock up on firearms.
Civil war? Again? If needed, I'm willing.
drift
Where do you enlist? :-)
Your nearest Gestapo office.... :)
I understand that they have a door to door pickup service. If you don't
go to them, they will come and get you. How considerate. :-/
Indeed. That's both "compassionate conservatism" and "christian
love."
(I saw your sarcasm and raised)
The government in the service of the people.
(call)
The AG and the USSC both have the Constitution at the basis of each
deliberation.
--
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 12:22:24 AM |
|
|
In article <jc27p0pjnjtlm085i6a8bngsq49vo3c6vt@4ax.com>,
stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 22:17:52 -0800, johac <jhachm@ixpres.com> wrote:
In article <jak4p01vma650q1blcd1elt7b2iuv70h53@4ax.com>,
stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
On Mon, 08 Nov 2004 22:15:32 -0800, johac <jhachm@ixpres.com> wrote:
In article <8i8vo05svfqdaks44idlli0tim43qtl646@4ax.com>,
stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
On Sat, 06 Nov 2004 23:46:54 -0800, johac <jhachm@ixpres.com> wrote:
In article <o49ro0dt817oc18sj8609jmm05b8g83t5q@4ax.com>,
drift@lost.net
wrote:
[]
If you don't like who's in, vote them out.
They took our country from us, let's take it back!
Best stock up on firearms.
Civil war? Again? If needed, I'm willing.
drift
Where do you enlist? :-)
Your nearest Gestapo office.... :)
I understand that they have a door to door pickup service. If you don't
go to them, they will come and get you. How considerate. :-/
Indeed. That's both "compassionate conservatism" and "christian
love."
(I saw your sarcasm and raised)
The government in the service of the people.
(call)
The AG and the USSC both have the Constitution at the basis of each
deliberation.
I'm out! I can't beat that!
--
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: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Ok, now, who didn't bother to vote? |
13 Nov 2004 11:57:07 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 11 Nov 2004 22:22:24 -0800, johac <jhachm@ixpres.com> wrote:
In article <jc27p0pjnjtlm085i6a8bngsq49vo3c6vt@4ax.com>,
stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 22:17:52 -0800, johac <jhachm@ixpres.com> wrote:
In article <jak4p01vma650q1blcd1elt7b2iuv70h53@4ax.com>,
stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
On Mon, 08 Nov 2004 22:15:32 -0800, johac <jhachm@ixpres.com> wrote:
In article <8i8vo05svfqdaks44idlli0tim43qtl646@4ax.com>,
stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
On Sat, 06 Nov 2004 23:46:54 -0800, johac <jhachm@ixpres.com> wrote:
In article <o49ro0dt817oc18sj8609jmm05b8g83t5q@4ax.com>,
drift@lost.net
wrote:
[]
If you don't like who's in, vote them out.
They took our country from us, let's take it back!
Best stock up on firearms.
Civil war? Again? If needed, I'm willing.
drift
Where do you enlist? :-)
Your nearest Gestapo office.... :)
I understand that they have a door to door pickup service. If you don't
go to them, they will come and get you. How considerate. :-/
Indeed. That's both "compassionate conservatism" and "christian
love."
(I saw your sarcasm and raised)
The government in the service of the people.
(call)
The AG and the USSC both have the Constitution at the basis of each
deliberation.
I'm out! I can't beat that!
Heheheheheh..../me rakes in the $$$$$
--
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Hello, theocracy with a fundamentalist US Supreme
Court who will ensure church and state are joined
at the hip like clergy and altar boys.
America 1776-Jan 2001 RIP
.
|
|
|
| User: "johac" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Ok, now, who didn't bother to vote? |
14 Nov 2004 01:01:34 AM |
|
|
In article <pmicp0dar19ffadm5thdfu3i510428bt4n@4ax.com>,
stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
On Thu, 11 Nov 2004 22:22:24 -0800, johac <jhachm@ixpres.com> wrote:
In article <jc27p0pjnjtlm085i6a8bngsq49vo3c6vt@4ax.com>,
stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 22:17:52 -0800, johac <jhachm@ixpres.com> wrote:
In article <jak4p01vma650q1blcd1elt7b2iuv70h53@4ax.com>,
stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
On Mon, 08 Nov 2004 22:15:32 -0800, johac <jhachm@ixpres.com> wrote:
In article <8i8vo05svfqdaks44idlli0tim43qtl646@4ax.com>,
stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
On Sat, 06 Nov 2004 23:46:54 -0800, johac <jhachm@ixpres.com> wrote:
In article <o49ro0dt817oc18sj8609jmm05b8g83t5q@4ax.com>,
drift@lost.net
wrote:
[]
If you don't like who's in, vote them out.
They took our country from us, let's take it back!
Best stock up on firearms.
Civil war? Again? If needed, I'm willing.
drift
Where do you enlist? :-)
Your nearest Gestapo office.... :)
I understand that they have a door to door pickup service. If you
don't
go to them, they will come and get you. How considerate. :-/
Indeed. That's both "compassionate conservatism" and "christian
love."
(I saw your sarcasm and raised)
The government in the service of the people.
(call)
The AG and the USSC both have the Constitution at the basis of each
deliberation.
I'm out! I can't beat that!
Heheheheheh..../me rakes in the $$$$$
/me laughs because stoney didn't notice every bill has Dubya's picture
on front..
--
John Hachmann aa #1782
Which raises the question: Can a people that believes more fervently
in theVirgin Birth than in evolution still be called an Enlightened
nation?-Garry Wills, New York Times 11/04/04
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Ok, now, who didn't bother to vote? |
15 Nov 2004 03:40:26 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 13 Nov 2004 23:01:34 -0800, johac <jhachm@ixpres.com> wrote:
In article <pmicp0dar19ffadm5thdfu3i510428bt4n@4ax.com>,
stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
On Thu, 11 Nov 2004 22:22:24 -0800, johac <jhachm@ixpres.com> wrote:
In article <jc27p0pjnjtlm085i6a8bngsq49vo3c6vt@4ax.com>,
stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 22:17:52 -0800, johac <jhachm@ixpres.com> wrote:
In article <jak4p01vma650q1blcd1elt7b2iuv70h53@4ax.com>,
stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
On Mon, 08 Nov 2004 22:15:32 -0800, johac <jhachm@ixpres.com> wrote:
In article <8i8vo05svfqdaks44idlli0tim43qtl646@4ax.com>,
stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
On Sat, 06 Nov 2004 23:46:54 -0800, johac <jhachm@ixpres.com> wrote:
In article <o49ro0dt817oc18sj8609jmm05b8g83t5q@4ax.com>,
drift@lost.net
wrote:
[]
If you don't like who's in, vote them out.
They took our country from us, let's take it back!
Best stock up on firearms.
Civil war? Again? If needed, I'm willing.
drift
Where do you enlist? :-)
Your nearest Gestapo office.... :)
I understand that they have a door to door pickup service. If you
don't
go to them, they will come and get you. How considerate. :-/
Indeed. That's both "compassionate conservatism" and "christian
love."
(I saw your sarcasm and raised)
The government in the service of the people.
(call)
The AG and the USSC both have the Constitution at the basis of each
deliberation.
I'm out! I can't beat that!
Heheheheheh..../me rakes in the $$$$$
/me laughs because stoney didn't notice every bill has Dubya's picture
on front..
Damn! :)
--
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Hello, theocracy with a fundamentalist US Supreme
Court who will ensure church and state are joined
at the hip like clergy and altar boys.
America 1776-Jan 2001 RIP
.
|
|
|
| User: "johac" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Ok, now, who didn't bother to vote? |
16 Nov 2004 12:12:33 AM |
|
|
In article <ph8ip09o6m0ghmbs9trv525ccnffdq7jp9@4ax.com>,
stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
On Sat, 13 Nov 2004 23:01:34 -0800, johac <jhachm@ixpres.com> wrote:
In article <pmicp0dar19ffadm5thdfu3i510428bt4n@4ax.com>,
stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
On Thu, 11 Nov 2004 22:22:24 -0800, johac <jhachm@ixpres.com> wrote:
In article <jc27p0pjnjtlm085i6a8bngsq49vo3c6vt@4ax.com>,
stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 22:17:52 -0800, johac <jhachm@ixpres.com> wrote:
In article <jak4p01vma650q1blcd1elt7b2iuv70h53@4ax.com>,
stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
On Mon, 08 Nov 2004 22:15:32 -0800, johac <jhachm@ixpres.com> wrote:
In article <8i8vo05svfqdaks44idlli0tim43qtl646@4ax.com>,
stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
On Sat, 06 Nov 2004 23:46:54 -0800, johac <jhachm@ixpres.com>
wrote:
In article <o49ro0dt817oc18sj8609jmm05b8g83t5q@4ax.com>,
drift@lost.net
wrote:
[]
If you don't like who's in, vote them out.
They took our country from us, let's take it back!
Best stock up on firearms.
Civil war? Again? If needed, I'm willing.
drift
Where do you enlist? :-)
Your nearest Gestapo office.... :)
I understand that they have a door to door pickup service. If you
don't
go to them, they will come and get you. How considerate. :-/
Indeed. That's both "compassionate conservatism" and "christian
love."
(I saw your sarcasm and raised)
The government in the service of the people.
(call)
The AG and the USSC both have the Constitution at the basis of each
deliberation.
I'm out! I can't beat that!
Heheheheheh..../me rakes in the $$$$$
/me laughs because stoney didn't notice every bill has Dubya's picture
on front..
Damn! :)
Heh!
--
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: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Ok, now, who didn't bother to vote? |
08 Nov 2004 10:43:39 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 06 Nov 2004 23:30:10 -0500, wrote:
On Sat, 06 Nov 2004 17:40:28 -0800, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
On Fri, 05 Nov 2004 23:53:54 -0800, johac <jhachm@ixpres.com> wrote:
In article <qs0oo0990j7ro2djlk8bqm24pi3fosfj02@4ax.com>,
wrote:
[]
If you don't like who's in, vote them out.
They took our country from us, let's take it back!
Best stock up on firearms.
Civil war? Again? If needed, I'm willing.
All other routes are blocked. Count me out on any armed revolt
though.
Hmmm....I wonder if, come January, the Repugs have enough control to
convene a 'Constitutional Convention?'
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 07:39:31 PM |
|
|
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.
--
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 01:44:04 AM |
|
|
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:
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.
Maybe, but it felt good flipping Bush off.
--
John Hachmann aa #1782
We lost a battle. The war goes on.
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Ok, now, who didn't bother to vote? |
08 Nov 2004 10:48:54 AM |
|
|
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.
--
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 12:24:10 AM |
|
|
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.
--
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: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Ok, now, who didn't bother to vote? |
10 Nov 2004 11:37:03 AM |
|
|
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.
--
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? |
11 Nov 2004 12:14:25 AM |
|
|
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:
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>,
drift@lost.net
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.
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.
--
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? |
11 Nov 2004 06:28:15 PM |
|
|
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:
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>,
drift@lost.net
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.
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.
Definately don't rely on one corporate run source. Interpolate from
many smaller and varied sources. And now with an inexpensive PC we can
glean from around the world info that isn't custom packed by America's
CEO's.
drift
.
|
|
|
| User: "johac" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Ok, now, who didn't bother to vote? |
12 Nov 2004 12:24:04 AM |
|
|
In article <bo08p0tt1d7uj4ev0pfhh3u3onecfinj1i@4ax.com>,
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:
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.
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.
Definately don't rely on one corporate run source. Interpolate from
many smaller and varied sources. And now with an inexpensive PC we can
glean from around the world info that isn't custom packed by America's
CEO's.
drift
True. I can hit news sources from all over the world and between them
get a good idea of what's really going on.
--
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
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
