><bkni...@conramp.net> wrote in message
>news:ocb7a8tqta7fkim30c34io4pbmduimfl5g@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 14 Nov 2012 08:37:48 -0500, "Frank Ketchum"
>> <nos...@thanksanyway.com> wrote:

>>><bkni...@conramp.net> wrote in message
>>>news:u977a8168brtee21bebku3h8am4nv6bkfh@4ax.com...
>>>> On Wed, 14 Nov 2012 08:25:08 -0500, "Frank Ketchum"
>>>> <nos...@thanksanyway.com> wrote:

>>>>><bkni...@conramp.net> wrote in message
>>>>>news:d767a8hbg364l8os1jb9nok4tm8iac4rim@4ax.com...
>>>>>> http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/11/12/15115328-republicans-go...

>>>>>No mention of jobs, the economy or foreign policy.  I guess those aren't
>>>>>issues to who wrote this.

>>>> I guess someone may have asked other questions, but you just don't
>>>> want to address these.  Figures.

>>>Come on Bobby, give me a break.  The story just happens to be about the
>>>particular issues where republicans lost and curiously absent from those
>>>issues are jobs, the economy or foreign policy.  You can't see through the
>>>selective reporting here?  Really? lol

>> Selective or not they are issues that were discussed and you still
>> haven't addressed them.

>Oh, I am required to address them?  I was unaware you had issued that order.

>"59% said that abortion should be legal in all or most cases."  I always
>hear stats like this.  Why is it then that the pro abort crowd would sooner
>die than actually have abortion be a ballot issue?  It should be a states
>issue and who is it that won't allow that?  Certainly not the pro life
>crowd, they would love to have it up to a vote.

>"a combined 60% said that tax rates should increase either for everyone or
>for those making more than $250,000. Just 35% said the tax rates shouldn't
>increase for anyone."
>Raising tax rates on everyone or just on those making more than 250k is
>quite a different issue don't you think?  Why would they lump those together
>in their analysis?  Obama ran on the latter, so what is the percentage that
>agree with Obama?  Hmm, they don't say.  Why is that?  Why would they not
>break out their results into all three possibilities?

>"And by a 49%-to-46% margin, voters said that their states should legally
>recognize same-sex marriage."  Well, their wording here is awkward and
>unclear.  I think they mean 49% in favor and 46% opposed, but then they say
>"margin".  That would actually be a 3% margin.  In any case, it's simply
>another issue for the states.  Put it on statewide ballots and let the chips
>fall where they may.  I'm fine with that.

>"65% said most illegal immigrants should be offered a chance to apply for
>legal status"  So what?  Who said there should be no path to legal status?

>>>Here is some post election fallout that you may want to get familiar with.
>>>Expect to see lots more of this for the next four years.
>>>http://ca.news.yahoo.com/budget-deficit-rises-120-billion-october-190...

>> Leaving to play golf, but will read and get back this afternoon.

>Dickhead.  It's 25 degrees here.