Weirder election than Battlestar Galactica's
Ken from Chicago
MORE election "irregularities", Illinois, show that "Chicago politics" is
second city to none and weirder than even science fiction. Despite the
upgrades to improve voting and ballot counting--or because of them--this
year's Cook county (the county that Chicago is in) polls closed at 7pm
Central and the results, usually completed by 8 or 9 pm, as of 1 am in the
morning are still incomplete.
IN YO FACE, RON MOORE!
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-060322countypres,1,5370617.story?coll=chi-news-hed
-- Ken from Chicago
Robert J. Kolker
> Six years after the Florida debacle, the one state in the nation which had
> MORE election "irregularities", Illinois, show that "Chicago politics" is
> second city to none and weirder than even science fiction. Despite the
> upgrades to improve voting and ballot counting--or because of them--this
> year's Cook county (the county that Chicago is in) polls closed at 7pm
Cook county, where the dead vote early and often. The same is said about
Boston, MA.
Bob Kolker
Bob
<kwicker1...@comcast.net> wrote:
>Six years after the Florida debacle, the one state in the nation which had
>MORE election "irregularities", Illinois, show that "Chicago politics" is
>second city to none and weirder than even science fiction. Despite the
>upgrades to improve voting and ballot counting--or because of them--this
>year's Cook county (the county that Chicago is in) polls closed at 7pm
>Central and the results, usually completed by 8 or 9 pm, as of 1 am in the
>morning are still incomplete.
It's those "late precincts reporting" where most of the vote fixing
occurs.
Turnout was light in Chicagoland's election yesterday, with only 130%
of voters showing up at the polls."
--
"How do you tell a communist? Well, it's someone who reads
Marx and Lenin. And how do you tell an anti-communist?
It's someone who understands Marx and Lenin."
--Ronald Reagan
ANIM8Rfsk
now...@nowhere.com wrote on 3/22/06 6:38 AM:
Hey, SOMEBODY had to put JFK in office!
--
The "Upward Foundation" in Phoenix AZ, 623-848-9725, 623-247-6142, 602
242-6839, 602 246-9186, 623 848-3568, 623-247-6376, also using the name
"Foundation For" are liars and scam artists. They make junk phone calls
often several times a day to the same number and refuse to remove you from
their calling list (they will give you a non working number to call to be
removed, and the contact address on their website is phony). This has been
going on for a decade. Do not deal with them.
The Nuclear Marine
news:q6CdnTC756LRzbzZ...@comcast.com:
Should the penalty for tampering with elections be death? State-wide and
national, I think that should be the case.
Know those shirts, bumper-stickers, etc. that say "Don't blame me, I
voted for the other guy...", that's a crock. If you voted, you accepted a
system that can select someone not your choice. However, as I vote and
must go for such a risk, I demand that the votes be fair.
So yes, Death to those that rig elections. There must be a reasonable
belief in our voting system by the public. It must be open, and
suseptible to investigation after the fact.
Nuke
--
I'm kinda divided on this whole abortion issue. On one hand, I'm not
about
to let no woman control nothing, especially her own body. On the other
hand, I really hate babies.
Earl Greida
"The Nuclear Marine" <Nuke-...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:Xns978E71E487...@70.169.32.36...
> "Ken from Chicago" <kwicker1...@comcast.net> wrote in
> news:q6CdnTC756LRzbzZ...@comcast.com:
>
> > Six years after the Florida debacle, the one state in the nation which
> > had MORE election "irregularities", Illinois, show that "Chicago
> > politics" is second city to none and weirder than even science
> > fiction. Despite the upgrades to improve voting and ballot
> > counting--or because of them--this year's Cook county (the county that
> > Chicago is in) polls closed at 7pm Central and the results, usually
> > completed by 8 or 9 pm, as of 1 am in the morning are still
> > incomplete.
> >
> > IN YO FACE, RON MOORE!
> >
> > http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-060322countypres,1,5370617
> > .story?coll=chi-news-hed
> >
> > -- Ken from Chicago
> >
>
> Should the penalty for tampering with elections be death? State-wide
> and national, I think that should be the case.
>
> Know those shirts, bumper-stickers, etc. that say "Don't blame me, I
> voted for the other guy...", that's a crock. If you voted, you accepted
> a system that can select someone not your choice. However, as I vote
> and must go for such a risk, I demand that the votes be fair.
>
> So yes, Death to those that rig elections. There must be a reasonable
> belief in our voting system by the public. It must be open, and
> suseptible to investigation after the fact.
>
Although Bush being declared president was an excellent example of a fixed
election I feel that overall this is not that big of a problem. A more
pressing problem is lobbyists writing legislation that benefits them and
their industry by buying sponsorship via elected officials. I rewatched
"The Aviator" last night and that contained an excellent example of crooked
politicians being bought and used by industry for their self-interest. Even
though that happened in the late 1940s I bet it still is going on in
Congress. How it can be stopped is beyond me.
Bob
wrote:
>> Cook county, where the dead vote early and often. The same is said about
>> Boston, MA.
>Hey, SOMEBODY had to put JFK in office!
Chicago elected JFK. It also elected Lincoln.
Both got us into terrible worthless wars.
Bob
<Nuke-...@cox.net> wrote:
>Should the penalty for tampering with elections be death? State-wide and
>national, I think that should be the case.
Why stop with that? How about a Constitutional amendment authorizing
tyrannicide. If any politician who is extended the public trust is
convicted by a jury of criminal activity, he hangs on the Capitol
steps until good and dead, say 1 week, with news at 11:00.
>Know those shirts, bumper-stickers, etc. that say "Don't blame me, I
>voted for the other guy...", that's a crock. If you voted, you accepted a
>system that can select someone not your choice. However, as I vote and
>must go for such a risk, I demand that the votes be fair.
What good is that going to do if the candidates are all hand-picked by
special interests.
>So yes, Death to those that rig elections. There must be a reasonable
>belief in our voting system by the public.
Why? The public has been so thoroughly brainwashed they could not
decide if the sun is going to rise tomorrow.
The day after the first man stepped on the Moon, 2/3 of those polled
said the whole thing was staged in the Arizona desert. The second day
it was only 1/3 of those polled.
Most people believe Lincoln started teh War of Northern Aggression to
free the slaves. That's how fucking stupid these "people" are.
If you have to pass an aptitude test to drive a car, and to carry a
gun, then you should have to pass an aptitude test to vote. The
problem is that most people would fail. All the smart people stay
home.
Bob
<eGREGIO...@FREEyahoo.commie> wrote:
>Although Bush being declared president
Bush was not declared president. He won the necessary electoral votes
to win the presidency. The Democrats checked, rechecked and
rerechecked the votes in Florida and conceded publically that Bush
won.
You are a perfect example of how the pinko commie media brainwashed
gullible people. The media did not report that Democrats conceded the
election in Florida with as much fanfare as it reported the false
allegations if irregularity - and you have obviously not put out the
effort to learn the truth.
>How it can be stopped is beyond me.
There is only one way to stop it - tyrannicide. That's the Earth-bound
equivalent of Spacing on Galactica.
The more criminal politicians we hang, the fewer will want to get
involved in politics to begin with.
Politicial philosophers such as John Locke and Thomas Aquinas were
strong advocates of tyrannicide.
"A ruler who violates natural law is illegitimate. He has no right to
be obeyed, his commands are mere force and coercion. Rulers who act
lawlessly, whose laws are unlawful, are mere criminals, and should be
dealt with in accordance with natural law, as applied in a state of
nature, in other words they and their servants should be killed as the
opportunity presents, like the dangerous animals that they are, the
common enemies of all mankind."
--John Locke
"He who kills a tyrant to free his country is praised and rewarded. A
tyrant by usurpation has illegitimately seized power and, therefore,
is a criminal. When there are no other means available of ridding the
community of the tyrant, the community may kill him. The legitimate
authority may condemn him to death using the normal course of law.
However, if the normal course of law is not available (due to the
actions of the tyrant), then the legitimate authority can proceed
informally to condemn the tyrant and even grant individuals a mandate
to execute the tyrant. A private citizen who takes the life of a
tyrant acts with public authority in the same way that a soldier does
in war."
--Thomas Aquinas
I
<snip>
<shudder>
Shouldn't you be outside on your front porch, yelling at them g**damned kids to get the hell off your lawn?
Bob
>Shouldn't you be outside on your front porch, yelling at them g**damned kids to get the hell off your lawn?
My beagle Artie does that for me.
Lio Convoy
news:4421b19a...@news-server.houston.rr.com:
> On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 11:51:42 -0700, ANIM8Rfsk <ANIM...@cox.net>
> wrote:
>
>>> Cook county, where the dead vote early and often. The same is said
>>> about Boston, MA.
>
>>Hey, SOMEBODY had to put JFK in office!
>
> Chicago elected JFK. It also elected Lincoln.
>
> Both got us into terrible worthless wars.
>
>
Not as worthless as Vietnam and Iraq.
Clell Harmon
>On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 11:51:42 -0700, ANIM8Rfsk <ANIM...@cox.net>
>wrote:
>
>>> Cook county, where the dead vote early and often. The same is said about
>>> Boston, MA.
>
>>Hey, SOMEBODY had to put JFK in office!
>
>Chicago elected JFK. It also elected Lincoln.
JFK would have won even if Illinois had gone the other way.
Check the electorial numbers.
>
>Both got us into terrible worthless wars.
--
"My God, it's full of stupid!"
Ken from Chicago
"Robert J. Kolker" <now...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:48d2bnF...@individual.net...
How do you think JFK got the White House back in the '60s?
-- Ken from Chicago
Ken from Chicago
> On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 07:25:29 -0600, "Ken from Chicago"
> <kwicker1...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>Six years after the Florida debacle, the one state in the nation which had
>>MORE election "irregularities", Illinois, show that "Chicago politics" is
>>second city to none and weirder than even science fiction. Despite the
>>upgrades to improve voting and ballot counting--or because of them--this
>>year's Cook county (the county that Chicago is in) polls closed at 7pm
>>Central and the results, usually completed by 8 or 9 pm, as of 1 am in the
>>morning are still incomplete.
>
> It's those "late precincts reporting" where most of the vote fixing
> occurs.
>
> Turnout was light in Chicagoland's election yesterday, with only 130%
> of voters showing up at the polls."
Precisely. Most places ONLY put in 110 percent, Chicago goes the extra
(magnificent) mile.
-- Ken from Chicago
Daniel Joseph Min
>On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 19:12:42 GMT, The Nuclear Marine
><Nuke-...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>Why? The public has been so thoroughly brainwashed they could not
>decide if the sun is going to rise tomorrow.
>The day after the first man stepped on the Moon, 2/3 of those polled
>said the whole thing was staged in the Arizona desert. The second day
>it was only 1/3 of those polled.
>
That's because NASA's six, allegedly-manned and half-million
miles per round-trip(!) missions to the Moon (1969-72) were
at best unmanned flights in competition with the U.S.S.R.'s
contemporaneous Soviet Luna/Lunakhod unmanned Moon missions.
"They couldn't make it so they faked it." Thus, the "manned"
portions of the missions were actually filmed under the top-
secret, heavily-guarded domed soundstages in the high desert
of Area 51, NV, perhaps around Pine Gap, AUS and maybe other
remote and publicly-inaccessible locations around the world.
__________________________________________________
Flags fluttering in the high-desert breeze, sand
buggies & actors running along in their deflated
monkeysuits-obviously recorded on highspeed film,
conspicuous absence of blast craters, impossibly
silent running under invisible exhaust emissions,
brazenly obvious backdrops that contrast sharply
against the nearby high-desert terrain, etc. etc.
__________________________________________________
&Here it is 2006, and NASA *still* has enough headaches trying
to cope with the challenges (remember the Challenger shuttle?)
of low-earth orbit manned spacecraft. But things were "easier"
generations ago, back in the bygone era of sliderules, hippies
and flower children. Yupp! Back then, the laws of physics were
a lot easier to deal with than they are now and that's obvious.
Our technology was FAR more advanced back then, than it is now... :-D
*Altitude Comparison Chart of Shuttle vs. Moon & Manmade Satellites:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=GPJSU4CX3875...@twistycreek.com
*Apollo Moon Missions 1969-1972 Were At Best *Unmanned*:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=VTKA4X1O3750...@Gilgamesh-frog.org
*Quasi-Uncensored Apollo Moon Hoax Bookmarks:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=7RL5KJIX3749...@Gilgamesh-frog.org
Dig it, Baby!
Daniel Joseph Min
http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x2B1CCFE7
*Download Min's Banned (Freeware) Books:
http://www.2hot2cool.com/11/danieljosephmin/
*NEW! Take Min's Spiritual I.Q. Test (if you dare):
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=HCRHGLQM3878...@anonymous.poster
*Min's Google-Archived Home Page On The WWW:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=XJBDEJF13826...@anonymous.poster
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
iQA/AwUBRCIIIpljD7YrHM/nEQISRwCgq1bP/2ffAFh388WHK1NvNEuu8c8AoIoV
Xa+A9KiJYWoShmLN+yd76PZd
=knVB
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Paul in Toronto
> Most people believe Lincoln started teh War of Northern Aggression to
> free the slaves. That's how fucking stupid these "people" are.
Didn't he want the South because it was a bit of an agricultural and
industrial powerhouse at the time, and he wanted the added inflow of money
that annexing the region would bring?
Didn't he also goad the South into attacking Fort Sumter, or something like
that?
Paul in Toronto
news:PTIGCMU23879...@twistycreek.com...
> "They couldn't make it so they faked it." Thus, the "manned"
> portions of the missions were actually filmed under the top-
> secret, heavily-guarded domed soundstages in the high desert
> of Area 51, NV, perhaps around Pine Gap, AUS and maybe other
> remote and publicly-inaccessible locations around the world.
I have a picture somewhere that shows it happened on a beach somewhere in
Hawaii.
Robert Juliano
Minsie's just pissed off that a supposedly liberal president made the
moon landings happen.
The altitude chart is only impressive... if you know nothing about
rocketry equations, nor orbital equations.
Minsie, I have to thank you. I was feeling a little bit down, about not
knowing enough rocketry and space tech to really build things. They say
that it sometimes helps to have someone dumber than yourself swing by...
And then you come along with with foaming posts, showing a true
ignorance on the matter of moon landings...
I thank you for your gift of humility.
Bob
David Johnston
<pfedo...@biteme.look.ca> wrote:
>"Bob" <sp...@uce.gov> wrote in message
>news:4421b1e4...@news-server.houston.rr.com...
>
>> Most people believe Lincoln started teh War of Northern Aggression to
>> free the slaves. That's how fucking stupid these "people" are.
Because of course the South started the war.
>
>Didn't he want the South because it was a bit of an agricultural and
>industrial powerhouse at the time, and he wanted the added inflow of money
>that annexing the region would bring?
No.
>
>Didn't he also goad the South into attacking Fort Sumter, or something like
>that?
No.
Robert J. Kolker
>>free the slaves. That's how fucking stupid these "people" are.
>
>
> Because of course the South started the war.
The initial cause of the war was Southron Secession. Freeing the Darkies
was a later matter and the Emancipation Proclamation was a political
maneuver to disuade the Brits from helping the Confederacy. It worked.
Lincoln may be been a thug, but he was a political genius.
>
>
>>Didn't he want the South because it was a bit of an agricultural and
>>industrial powerhouse at the time, and he wanted the added inflow of money
>>that annexing the region would bring?
>
>
> No.
>
>
>>Didn't he also goad the South into attacking Fort Sumter, or something like
>>that?
>
>
> No.
The Southrons attacked Ft. Sumter because of excessive testosterone and
because they believed that Southron Manhood exceeded the valor and the
bravery of mean minded Yankees. It was the kind of bullshit propaganda
that the Lords of the Veranda and the Mint Julip loved to spread about
Yankees. They found out different at Gettysburg and Petersburg. The
Yankees beat the living shit out of the Southrons in spite of superior
generalship on the battle field. The Southrons got the measure of Yankee
valor in the Hornet's Nest in the Battle of Shiloh (Pittsburg Landing).
The Yankees burned the Southrons down and took their Nigger Slaves away.
Sherman's March Through Georgia was utterly Just. It negated Southron
arrogance. We burned them out, we burned them down and we wrecked them
real good. The Yankees kicked ass. And it does not matter one bit if
Lincoln was a fascist thug (he was). The Southrons needed a good licking
and they got it.
Bob Kolker
Bo Raxo
"Ken from Chicago" <kwicker1...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:wZSdne49RKO...@comcast.com...
Kennedy: 303 electoral college votes
Nixon: 219 electoral college votes
Sounds like he got there by winning the election.
The Nuclear Marine
news:GxhUf.4214$HW2....@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net:
>
> "The Nuclear Marine" <Nuke-...@cox.net> wrote in message
> news:Xns978E71E487...@70.169.32.36...
>> "Ken from Chicago" <kwicker1...@comcast.net> wrote in
>> news:q6CdnTC756LRzbzZ...@comcast.com:
>>
>> > Six years after the Florida debacle, the one state in the nation
>> > which had MORE election "irregularities", Illinois, show that
>> > "Chicago politics" is second city to none and weirder than even
>> > science fiction. Despite the upgrades to improve voting and ballot
>> > counting--or because of them--this year's Cook county (the county
>> > that Chicago is in) polls closed at 7pm Central and the results,
>> > usually completed by 8 or 9 pm, as of 1 am in the morning are still
>> > incomplete.
>> >
>> > IN YO FACE, RON MOORE!
>> >
>> > http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-060322countypres,1,5370
>> > 617 .story?coll=chi-news-hed
>> >
>> > -- Ken from Chicago
>> >
>>
>> Should the penalty for tampering with elections be death? State-wide
>> and national, I think that should be the case.
>>
>> Know those shirts, bumper-stickers, etc. that say "Don't blame me, I
>> voted for the other guy...", that's a crock. If you voted, you
>> accepted a system that can select someone not your choice. However,
>> as I vote and must go for such a risk, I demand that the votes be
>> fair.
>>
>> So yes, Death to those that rig elections. There must be a reasonable
>> belief in our voting system by the public. It must be open, and
>> suseptible to investigation after the fact.
>>
>
> Although Bush being declared president was an excellent example of a
> fixed election I feel that overall this is not that big of a problem.
> A more pressing problem is lobbyists writing legislation that benefits
> them and their industry by buying sponsorship via elected officials.
> I rewatched "The Aviator" last night and that contained an excellent
> example of crooked politicians being bought and used by industry for
> their self-interest. Even though that happened in the late 1940s I
> bet it still is going on in Congress. How it can be stopped is beyond
> me.
>
A Congressman himself is a lobbyist for his state and area. A good way to
turn this around is cut back on all the perks Congressman get that help
them get re-elected. Their staff should NEVER be more than 5 people if
that much. More transparent donations help, however I think the internet
has truly given the ability to track your Congressman better.
An the other hand, the Presidents cabinet is too large, cut out most of
those positions and departments.
For the gods' sakes, split up the 9th district. They hear 1/3 the cases
of the country. Conservatives are abusing stats to call the 9th too
liberal (yes, Supreme Court overturns more 9th district cases, 1/3 of all
cases to the SCOTUS comes from the 9th district you moron), lets get rid
of that advantage to talking wingnuts.
Pat Flannery
Robert Juliano wrote:
>
>
> Minsie, I have to thank you. I was feeling a little bit down, about
> not knowing enough rocketry and space tech to really build things.
> They say that it sometimes helps to have someone dumber than yourself
> swing by...
I still want to know more about Uranus being in the Dragon's Mouth.
Where's St. George when you need him?
Pat
The Nuclear Marine
server.houston.rr.com:
> On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 19:26:30 GMT, "Earl Greida"
> <eGREGIO...@FREEyahoo.commie> wrote:
>
>>Although Bush being declared president
>
> Bush was not declared president. He won the necessary electoral votes
> to win the presidency. The Democrats checked, rechecked and
> rerechecked the votes in Florida and conceded publically that Bush
> won.
>
They checked, Gore got more votes. Moot point. Remember that ultimately
Bush won by less votes than the number of soldiers killed in the first
week of the invasion of Iraq. Yes, the leader of 300 million people was
decided by a margin of 137 votes. Not Bush's fault, just the way our
system is set up.
> You are a perfect example of how the pinko commie media brainwashed
> gullible people. The media did not report that Democrats conceded the
> election in Florida with as much fanfare as it reported the false
> allegations if irregularity - and you have obviously not put out the
> effort to learn the truth.
>
Ad hominems get you no where. Irregularities existed and will turn up
again. I don't care who wins, so long as its done fairly.
>>How it can be stopped is beyond me.
>
> There is only one way to stop it - tyrannicide. That's the Earth-bound
> equivalent of Spacing on Galactica.
>
> The more criminal politicians we hang, the fewer will want to get
> involved in politics to begin with.
>
> Politicial philosophers such as John Locke and Thomas Aquinas were
> strong advocates of tyrannicide.
>
> "A ruler who violates natural law is illegitimate. He has no right to
> be obeyed, his commands are mere force and coercion. Rulers who act
> lawlessly, whose laws are unlawful, are mere criminals, and should be
> dealt with in accordance with natural law, as applied in a state of
> nature, in other words they and their servants should be killed as the
> opportunity presents, like the dangerous animals that they are, the
> common enemies of all mankind."
> --John Locke
>
Note, this was written in the times of when the Ruler was a Ruler for
life. Our leaders have a pre installed experation date.
> "He who kills a tyrant to free his country is praised and rewarded. A
> tyrant by usurpation has illegitimately seized power and, therefore,
> is a criminal. When there are no other means available of ridding the
> community of the tyrant, the community may kill him. The legitimate
> authority may condemn him to death using the normal course of law.
> However, if the normal course of law is not available (due to the
> actions of the tyrant), then the legitimate authority can proceed
> informally to condemn the tyrant and even grant individuals a mandate
> to execute the tyrant. A private citizen who takes the life of a
> tyrant acts with public authority in the same way that a soldier does
> in war."
> --Thomas Aquinas
>
So when the Tyrant was placed in power by the People, should the private
citizen kill the People to prevent power being granted to another Tyrant?
Tough questions, but I'm not in favor of regicide. Leaves a power vacuum
usually more dangerous than the current situation. Thankfully,
democracies survive assasinations with better results that tyrannies.
The Nuclear Marine
news:4421b1e4...@news-server.houston.rr.com:
> On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 19:12:42 GMT, The Nuclear Marine
> <Nuke-...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>>Should the penalty for tampering with elections be death? State-wide
>>and national, I think that should be the case.
>
> Why stop with that? How about a Constitutional amendment authorizing
> tyrannicide. If any politician who is extended the public trust is
> convicted by a jury of criminal activity, he hangs on the Capitol
> steps until good and dead, say 1 week, with news at 11:00.
>
Believe it or not, this sounds reasonable. The public trust must be a
fearsome burden to bear.
>>Know those shirts, bumper-stickers, etc. that say "Don't blame me, I
>>voted for the other guy...", that's a crock. If you voted, you
>>accepted a system that can select someone not your choice. However, as
>>I vote and must go for such a risk, I demand that the votes be fair.
>
> What good is that going to do if the candidates are all hand-picked by
> special interests.
>
So why did you vote? Don't vote so you have the honest ability to
complain about either choice.
>>So yes, Death to those that rig elections. There must be a reasonable
>>belief in our voting system by the public.
>
> Why? The public has been so thoroughly brainwashed they could not
> decide if the sun is going to rise tomorrow.
With elections, we trust in the overall results still being the best.
> The day after the first man stepped on the Moon, 2/3 of those polled
> said the whole thing was staged in the Arizona desert. The second day
> it was only 1/3 of those polled.
>
Reference please?
> Most people believe Lincoln started teh War of Northern Aggression to
> free the slaves. That's how fucking stupid these "people" are.
>
> If you have to pass an aptitude test to drive a car, and to carry a
> gun, then you should have to pass an aptitude test to vote. The
> problem is that most people would fail. All the smart people stay
> home.
>
Same reason most uprisings are led by the intelligent, middle class.
Majority of people DO NOT CARE. So long as they're fed, housed, and get
laid once in awhile they do not care what happens around them. Only those
that have basic needs met and can look to higher needs may notice there
is something more that should be occuring in their surroundings.
Basicly, yes, popular polls and elections mean nothing. Still, they must
be kept honest during the times the average citizen is appathetic so that
those that do care (usually conservatives) can vote and control destiny.
Only when they cock it up and mobilize the apathetic can we expect
change.
That's the one of many "quirks" about this last US election. The masses
were mobilized, yet somehow the status quo was kept. Flew in the face of
all social sciences.
Zombie Elvis
<kwicker1...@comcast.net> wrote:
>Six years after the Florida debacle, the one state in the nation which had
>MORE election "irregularities", Illinois, show that "Chicago politics" is
>second city to none and weirder than even science fiction. Despite the
>upgrades to improve voting and ballot counting--or because of them--this
>year's Cook county (the county that Chicago is in) polls closed at 7pm
>Central and the results, usually completed by 8 or 9 pm, as of 1 am in the
>morning are still incomplete.
>
>IN YO FACE, RON MOORE!
>
>http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-060322countypres,1,5370617.story?coll=chi-news-hed
>
Big deal. Most of the problems appear to be that the often elderly
election judges were confused by the voting system, leading to slow
but generally honest results.
--
"Actually, the Medium Point Bic Round Stick is the preferred
pen for emergency tracheotomies."
-- ER Doctor in Wonderfalls
Roberto Castillo
roberto...@ameritech.net
http://www.freewebs.com/robertocastillo/
David Johnston
<now...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>David Johnston wrote:
>>>free the slaves. That's how fucking stupid these "people" are.
>>
>>
>> Because of course the South started the war.
>
>The initial cause of the war was Southron Secession.
And the cause of the secession was the slavery issue. So what?
David Johnston
<Nuke-...@cox.net> wrote:
>sp...@uce.gov (Bob) wrote in
>news:4421b1e4...@news-server.houston.rr.com:
>
>> On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 19:12:42 GMT, The Nuclear Marine
>> <Nuke-...@cox.net> wrote:
>>
>>>Should the penalty for tampering with elections be death? State-wide
>>>and national, I think that should be the case.
>>
>> Why stop with that? How about a Constitutional amendment authorizing
>> tyrannicide. If any politician who is extended the public trust is
>> convicted by a jury of criminal activity, he hangs on the Capitol
>> steps until good and dead, say 1 week, with news at 11:00.
>>
>
>Believe it or not, this sounds reasonable.
A lot of things sound reasonable until you consider the likely
consequences. For example, the first time you have a massive
political scandal, the result is going to be a coup d'etat.
Bob
>>>Hey, SOMEBODY had to put JFK in office!
>> Chicago elected JFK. It also elected Lincoln.
>> Both got us into terrible worthless wars.
>Not as worthless as Vietnam and Iraq.
Which war do you think JFK got us into?
Bob
wrote:
>>> Most people believe Lincoln started teh War of Northern Aggression to
>>> free the slaves. That's how fucking stupid these "people" are.
>Because of course the South started the war.
Lincoln started the War.
>>Didn't he want the South because it was a bit of an agricultural and
>>industrial powerhouse at the time, and he wanted the added inflow of money
>>that annexing the region would bring?
>No.
The Tariff of Abominations of 1828 was cause of secession which then
forced Lincoln to start the War by conscripting 75,000 northern
militia members into the Union Army.
>>Didn't he also goad the South into attacking Fort Sumter, or something like
>>that?
>No.
Yes. Lincoln was sending provisions to the Union soldiers on Sumter.
Bob
<now...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>Lincoln may be been a thug, but he was a political genius.
Salmon Chase was the genius behind Lincoln.
Bob
<Nuke-...@cox.net> wrote:
>They checked, Gore got more votes.
Not popular vote in Florida. Bush won Florida fairly.
Gore got more of the popular vote nationwide. Bush won because he got
more electoral votes.
higgy
> On , Lio Convoy <lioc...@iwonttellyou.com> wrote:
>
>>>>Hey, SOMEBODY had to put JFK in office!
>
>>> Chicago elected JFK. It also elected Lincoln.
>
>>> Both got us into terrible worthless wars.
>
>>Not as worthless as Vietnam and Iraq.
>
> Which war do you think JFK got us into?
Vietnam was a smokescreen, so you wouldn't find out about the whole space
lizards and soviet robots thing.
higgy.
Bruce Stewart
I find it fascinating that anyone can believe this.
The first obvious thing, is if the Moon landings were faked, why didn't the
soviets just pop up and and say "The Imperialist Capitalist United States
has falsely claimed that they landed on the moon". They didn't did they.
You would have thought if there was any way of undermining the US political
influence they would have said so.
The second thing, the problems with the shuttle have frack all to do with
physics and everything to do with a compromised design for a space craft.
Bruce S.
--
Replace the by by blueyonder
Robert J. Kolker
>
>
> Which war do you think JFK got us into?
Vietnam. He sent advisers. It was Johnson who really dunked us in the
shit. The -Texan-, Lyndon Johnson. The man who faked the Gulf of Tonkein
Incident.
Bob Kolker
Robert J. Kolker
>
>
> Lincoln started the War.
The Rebs fired on Ft. Sumter, the stupid bastards. They handed Abe the
Perfect Excuse to really get rough.
That was the military act. It was really Secession. Blame it on the
leaders of South Carolina. Too small to be a republic and too large to
be an insanse asylum.
Bob Kolker
Robert J. Kolker
> On Thu, 23 Mar 2006 00:18:39 -0500, "Robert J. Kolker"
> <now...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Lincoln may be been a thug, but he was a political genius.
>
>
> Salmon Chase was the genius behind Lincoln.
He was a genius enough to listen to Chase. Chase was his "Karl Rove".
Bob Kolker
>
>
Robert J. Kolker
> On Thu, 23 Mar 2006 06:26:05 GMT, The Nuclear Marine
> <Nuke-...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>
>>They checked, Gore got more votes.
>
>
> Not popular vote in Florida. Bush won Florida fairly.
1. If the black population of Florida could read instructions better.
(Fat chance!)
2. Little Old Jewish and Italian retired ladies could handle butterfly
ballots as readily as they handle twelve Bingo Cards at a time.
THEN
Al Gore would have been President (as ugly as the thought is).
Bob Kolker
Bob
wrote:
>>The initial cause of the war was Southron Secession.
>And the cause of the secession was the slavery issue. So what?
No. The cause of secession was the Tariff of Abominations. Slavery was
the excuse the states used to secede because it was easier to get the
needed votes.
Bob
wrote:
>>>How about a Constitutional amendment authorizing
>>> tyrannicide. If any politician who is extended the public trust is
>>> convicted by a jury of criminal activity, he hangs on the Capitol
>>> steps until good and dead, say 1 week, with news at 11:00.
>>Believe it or not, this sounds reasonable.
>A lot of things sound reasonable until you consider the likely
>consequences. For example, the first time you have a massive
>political scandal, the result is going to be a coup d'etat.
Then don't have a massive political scandal.
The first time you pour gasoline all over someone and set him on fire,
he will surely suffer. Then don't do it.
Bob
>> Which war do you think JFK got us into?
>Vietnam was a smokescreen, so you wouldn't find out about the whole space
>lizards and soviet robots thing.
I thought it was a smokescreen designed to reduce the black population
of America.
Bob
<now...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>They checked, Gore got more votes.
>> Not popular vote in Florida. Bush won Florida fairly.
>1. If the black population of Florida could read instructions better.
>(Fat chance!)
>2. Little Old Jewish and Italian retired ladies could handle butterfly
>ballots as readily as they handle twelve Bingo Cards at a time.
>THEN
>Al Gore would have been President (as ugly as the thought is).
The special interests were afraid of that flake. They would have done
anything to prevent him from becoming president. Clinton knew that and
that's why he chose him as his VP. It even prevented him from being
run out of office.
mma...@my-deja.com
> Minsie's just pissed off that a supposedly liberal president made the
> moon landings happen.
That's the first time I've heard someone call Nixon a liberal.
Mark
Rand Simberg
mma...@my-deja.com made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way
as to indicate that:
In modern terms, at least domestically, he was ("we're all Keynesians
now"). He was the guy who instituted wage and price controls, for
example.
Of course, to get back to the original point, he didn't make the moon
landings happen. The program was almost complete by the time he took
office (he'd only been president for seven months when Armstrong and
Aldrin landed).
Robert J. Kolker
Most of the work was done during the Kennedy and Johnson
administrations. Dickie Doo was just along for the ride. Had the Apollo
One disaster not occurred the first Moon landing would have been during
the Johnson administration.
Bob Kolker
Rand Simberg
J. Kolker" <now...@nowhere.com> made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:
>mma...@my-deja.com wrote:
Actually, had Johnson been reelected, it would have even with Apollo
One.
Steven P. McNicoll
"Robert J. Kolker" <now...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:48foudF...@individual.net...
>>
>> That's the first time I've heard someone call Nixon a liberal.
>>
>
> Most of the work was done during the Kennedy and Johnson administrations.
Nixon was as liberal as Kennedy.
Steven P. McNicoll
"Rand Simberg" <simberg.i...@org.trash> wrote in message
news:44e1d9fd....@news.giganews.com...
>
> Actually, had Johnson been reelected, it would have even with Apollo
> One.
>
If Johnson could have been reelected he would have run for reelection.
I
> Had the Apollo One disaster not occurred the first Moon landing would have been during the Johnson administration.
Had the Apollo 1 disaster not occurred, some other disaster would have,
and depending on where & when, could have pushed back the program
even further. The original CSM was a shoddy piece of crap deathtrap, and
would have killed a crew eventually (and in fact, it almost did again, on 13).
Besides, delays in developing the LEM would never have permitted a landing
during the Johnson administration.
Paul Vader
>http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-060322countypres,1,5370617.story?coll=chi-news-hed
Heck, I voted for Stroger, even though he DID just have a stroke. I'd
rather have an appointee to be named later than the flaming asshole that's
running against him. *
--
* PV something like badgers--something like lizards--and something
like corkscrews.
Paul in Toronto
news:4422547a...@news-server.houston.rr.com...
>>>Didn't he also goad the South into attacking Fort Sumter, or something
>>>like
>>>that?
>
>>No.
>
> Yes. Lincoln was sending provisions to the Union soldiers on Sumter.
I wish I had the names of the books I'd read this in, but it was years ago,
and the books are back at the library... But anyway... At least two books
stated that not only were arms and provisions being sent to Sumter, but that
it was being done in such a way as to attract enemy attention.
Further to that point, the authors of the books went on to say that
information regarding the dateand contents of the shipment was deliberately
leaked, under Lincoln's orders, to enemy spies to ensure that Confederate
generals got the information and *couldn't* pass up the opportunity to
attack the fort and get the much needed arms and provisions that were being
sent there.
So, at least according to those two sources, the attack on Fort Sumter was a
result of manipulation on Lincoln's part. He wanted to start a war, wanted
to grind the Confederacy into the dirt, but didn't want it on his conscience
that he fired the first shot. So he goaded the South into attacking, and
when they did, spread the word that they were monsters, that they attacked a
small, relatively defenseless and unimportant outpost and that swift and
painful retribution was the order of the day. Quite a nice way of doing
things, if you ask me... If you want to start a war and wipe out an enemy,
make sure they attack first and give you an excuse.
Anyway... That's the argument that I read. This was for a university
history paper about a decade ago. Got an A- on that paper, arguing that
Lincoln was a warmonger... <grin> Like I said, I really, really wish I had
the titles of the books written down somewhere.
So economics wasn't a factor at all? I mean the South had tonnes of cotton
and tobacco plantations. Surely Union politicians were looking at all the
money that generated and rubbing their hands together greedily, wishing it
was all theirs... I'm sure it was at least a factor.
ANIM8Rfsk
wrote on 3/23/06 6:10 AM:
> On Thu, 23 Mar 2006 07:30:27 -0500, "Robert J. Kolker"
> <now...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>>>> They checked, Gore got more votes.
>
>>> Not popular vote in Florida. Bush won Florida fairly.
>
>> 1. If the black population of Florida could read instructions better.
>> (Fat chance!)
>
>> 2. Little Old Jewish and Italian retired ladies could handle butterfly
>> ballots as readily as they handle twelve Bingo Cards at a time.
>
>> THEN
>
>> Al Gore would have been President (as ugly as the thought is).
>
> The special interests were afraid of that flake. They would have done
> anything to prevent him from becoming president. Clinton knew that and
> that's why he chose him as his VP. It even prevented him from being
> run out of office.
>
That's absolutely the reason I didn't want Clinton removed from office.
Gore as in incumbent would have been an nightmare. Clinton should have left
in handcuffs at the end of his term though.
--
The "Upward Foundation" in Phoenix AZ, 623-848-9725, 623-247-6142, 602
242-6839, 602 246-9186, 623 848-3568, 623-247-6376, also using the name
"Foundation For" are liars and scam artists. They make junk phone calls
often several times a day to the same number and refuse to remove you from
their calling list (they will give you a non working number to call to be
removed, and the contact address on their website is phony). This has been
going on for a decade. Do not deal with them.
Robert J. Kolker
That is probably true, but Nixon had little to do with the success of
Apollo.
Bob Kolker
>
>
Joseph D. Korman
> On Wed, 22 Mar 2006, sp...@uce.gov (Bob) wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 19:12:42 GMT, The Nuclear Marine
>><Nuke-...@cox.net> wrote:
>>
>>><snippity>
>>
>>Why? The public has been so thoroughly brainwashed they could not
>>decide if the sun is going to rise tomorrow.
>>The day after the first man stepped on the Moon, 2/3 of those polled
>>said the whole thing was staged in the Arizona desert. The second day
>>it was only 1/3 of those polled.
>>
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
> That's because NASA's six, allegedly-manned and half-million
> miles per round-trip(!) missions to the Moon (1969-72) were
> at best unmanned flights in competition with the U.S.S.R.'s
> contemporaneous Soviet Luna/Lunakhod unmanned Moon missions.
>
> "They couldn't make it so they faked it." Thus, the "manned"
> portions of the missions were actually filmed under the top-
> secret, heavily-guarded domed soundstages in the high desert
> of Area 51, NV, perhaps around Pine Gap, AUS and maybe other
> remote and publicly-inaccessible locations around the world.
>
Snip of more nonsense.
Please see:
http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html
--
-------------------------------------------------
| Joseph D. Korman |
| mailto:re...@thejoekorner.com |
| Visit The JoeKorNer at |
| http://www.thejoekorner.com |
|-------------------------------------------------|
| AOL-IM user name joekoreln |
|-------------------------------------------------|
| The light at the end of the tunnel ... |
| may be a train going the other way! |
| Don't take any wooden Metrocards |
| Happily retired since May 2005! |
| Battlestar Galactica is better than... |
| the last two Star Treks - WAY better! !
| Brooklyn Tech Grads build things that work! |
|-------------------------------------------------|
| All outgoing E-mail is scanned by NAV |
-------------------------------------------------
Steven P. McNicoll
>
> That is probably true, but Nixon had little to do with the success of
> Apollo.
>
Nor did Kennedy.
Rand Simberg
P. McNicoll" <ronca...@earthlink.net> made the phosphor on my
monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:
Not did any president, for that matter, but it wouldn't have had a
chance to be successful if Kennedy hadn't initiated the program.
Steven P. McNicoll
"Rand Simberg" <simberg.i...@org.trash> wrote in message
>
> Not did any president, for that matter, but it wouldn't have had a
> chance to be successful if Kennedy hadn't initiated the program.
>
Kennedy did not initiate the program.
Robert J. Kolker
It was JFK who proposed the mission. NASA took him up on it.
Bob Kolker
>
Rand Simberg
P. McNicoll" <ronca...@earthlink.net> made the phosphor on my
monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:
>
Then who do you fantasize did?
Bob
<now...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>It was JFK who proposed the mission. NASA took him up on it.
You mean Congress authorized the funds...
Werner was talking about a manned landing back in the 1950s.
--
"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant:
It's just that they know so much that isn't so."
--Ronald Reagan
Bob
<now...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>> Nixon was as liberal as Kennedy.
>That is probably true, but Nixon had little to do with the success of
>Apollo.
Nixon tried to get even with leftist academics by cutting off their
funds. By 1970 NASA was essentially out of business. Seattle was
almost a ghost town.
Rand Simberg
sp...@uce.gov (Bob) made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way
as to indicate that:
>On Thu, 23 Mar 2006 12:05:23 -0500, "Robert J. Kolker"
><now...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>>> Nixon was as liberal as Kennedy.
>
>>That is probably true, but Nixon had little to do with the success of
>>Apollo.
>
>Nixon tried to get even with leftist academics by cutting off their
>funds.
??
I don't know if this is even true, but it has nothing to do with:
>By 1970 NASA was essentially out of business. Seattle was
>almost a ghost town.
NASA was smaller, but hardly "out of business," essentially or
otherwise. And Seattle didn't have that much NASA business--its
problems were due to defense cutbacks and SST cancellation, not Apollo
wind down. And the decision to end Apollo was made by the Johnson
administration.
Other than that, you have everything else (which is to say, almost
nothing) right.
Steven P. McNicoll
"Rand Simberg" <simberg.i...@org.trash> wrote in message
>
> Then who do you fantasize did?
>
I don't know, but I do know that NASA announced Project Apollo on July 28,
1960, when Senator JFK was busily running for president.
Bob
<pfedo...@biteme.look.ca> wrote:
>Anyway... That's the argument that I read. This was for a university
>history paper about a decade ago. Got an A- on that paper, arguing that
>Lincoln was a warmonger... <grin> Like I said, I really, really wish I had
>the titles of the books written down somewhere.
Emancipating Slaves, Enslaving Free Men:
A History of the American Civil War
by Jeffrey Rogers Hummel
Paperback - 440 pages (May 1996)
Open Court Publishing Company
ISBN: 0812693124
---
When in the Course of Human Events
by Charles Adams
Hardcover - 272 pages (January 2000)
Rowman & Littlefield
ISBN: 0847697223
---
The Real Lincoln:
A New Look at Abraham Lincoln, His Agenda, and an Unnecessary War
by Thomas J. Dilorenzo
Hardcover: 272 pages (March 2002)
Prima Publishing
ISBN: 0761536418
---
Our Secret Constitution
How Lincoln Redefined American Democracy
by George P. Fletcher
Hardcover: 272 pages (May 2001)
Oxford Univ Press
ISBN: 0195141423
>So economics wasn't a factor at all? I mean the South had tonnes of cotton
>and tobacco plantations. Surely Union politicians were looking at all the
>money that generated and rubbing their hands together greedily, wishing it
>was all theirs... I'm sure it was at least a factor.
Both secession and the War were most definitely about economics. The
Tariff of Abominations 1828 was at the center of it all. The South
could not afford to import British and European goods and thereby give
them the currency to reciprocate in trade. The North had not
participated in the Industrial Revolution the way Britain had, so it
had no recourse but to get Congress to protect its overpriced
industries.
It does go father than economics. If the South had been allowed to
trade with Britain, then Britain would have gained a foothold in the
Colonies which could have easily led to loss of sovereingty. Lincoln
had no choice but to keep Britain out of the US, even if it meant a
bloody War with the CSA.
Steven P. McNicoll
>
> It was JFK who proposed the mission. NASA took him up on it.
>
NASA announced Project Apollo on July 28, 1960. When did Senator Kennedy
propose the project to NASA?
Bob
wrote:
>Clinton should have left
>in handcuffs at the end of his term though.
He became irrelevant, which for a politician is even worse.
Bob
Simberg) wrote:
>Not did any president, for that matter, but it wouldn't have had a
>chance to be successful if Kennedy hadn't initiated the program.
JFK did not initiate the program. Congress did.
Bob
Simberg) wrote:
>>Kennedy did not initiate the program.
>Then who do you fantasize did?
No fantasy involved. Congress appropriated the funding for NASA to
land men on the Moon.
Did you ever work for NASA? I did. I even shook Werner von Braun's
hand.
Rand Simberg
P. McNicoll" <ronca...@earthlink.net> made the phosphor on my
monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:
>
President Kennedy proposed the project to the nation in May of 1961.
Had he not done that, there would have been no moon landings.
http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4214/ch1-3.html
"...in mid-1960 NASA announced its intention to award contracts to
study the feasibility of a manned lunar mission. The project even had
a name: Apollo. On October 25, study contracts were let to three
aerospace firms.12
NASA might conduct studies to show that man could go to the moon, and
scientists might argue that manned space flight was of doubtful value,
but Congress and the president would have to make the commitment, and
the decisive stimulus was still lacking."
Rand Simberg
P. McNicoll" <ronca...@earthlink.net> made the phosphor on my
monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:
>
All that meant was that they issued some feasibility study contracts.
NASA does this all the time with many things that never happen (in
fact, most of the time, the project fails to go forward). There would
have been no moon landing unless it became national policy, in May of
1961.
Rand Simberg
sp...@uce.gov (Bob) made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way
as to indicate that:
>On Thu, 23 Mar 2006 20:49:26 GMT, simberg.i...@org.trash (Rand
>Simberg) wrote:
>
>>Not did any president, for that matter, but it wouldn't have had a
>>chance to be successful if Kennedy hadn't initiated the program.
>
>JFK did not initiate the program. Congress did.
This is nonsense. What is your problem with giving JFK appropriate
credit for initiating the Apollo program?
Rand Simberg
sp...@uce.gov (Bob) made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way
as to indicate that:
>On Thu, 23 Mar 2006 21:16:19 GMT, simberg.i...@org.trash (Rand
>Simberg) wrote:
>
>>>Kennedy did not initiate the program.
>
>>Then who do you fantasize did?
>
>No fantasy involved. Congress appropriated the funding for NASA to
>land men on the Moon.
After Kennedy requested it.
>Did you ever work for NASA?
Yes.
>I did. I even shook Werner von Braun's hand.
Well, whoop-de-doo.
Bob
Simberg) wrote:
>President Kennedy proposed the project to the nation in May of 1961.
>Had he not done that, there would have been no moon landings.
Please, you are making a real fool out of yourself with all this
made-up history.
Bob
Simberg) wrote:
>>JFK did not initiate the program. Congress did.
>This is nonsense. What is your problem with giving JFK appropriate
>credit for initiating the Apollo program?
Please, enough is enough.
You are beginning to sound like a troll.
Bob
Simberg) wrote:
>>>>Kennedy did not initiate the program.
>>>Then who do you fantasize did?
>>No fantasy involved. Congress appropriated the funding for NASA to
>>land men on the Moon.
>After Kennedy requested it.
Before JFK requested it.
>>Did you ever work for NASA?
>Yes.
Where?
>>I did. I even shook Werner von Braun's hand.
>Well, whoop-de-doo.
Jealous.
Rand Simberg
>>>JFK did not initiate the program. Congress did.
>
>>This is nonsense. What is your problem with giving JFK appropriate
>>credit for initiating the Apollo program?
>
>Please, enough is enough.
>
>You are beginning to sound like a troll.
I think psychological term for this "projection."
Steven P. McNicoll
"Rand Simberg" <simberg.i...@org.trash> wrote in message
>
> This is nonsense. What is your problem with giving JFK appropriate
> credit for initiating the Apollo program?
>
My guess would be the fact that JFK did not initiate the Apollo program.
Why do you insist on revising history?
Steven P. McNicoll
"Rand Simberg" <simberg.i...@org.trash> wrote in message
>
> All that meant was that they issued some feasibility study contracts.
> NASA does this all the time with many things that never happen (in
> fact, most of the time, the project fails to go forward).
>
It means the Apollo project existed at an earlier date than JFK would have
been in a position to initiate it, thus it means that JFK did not initiate
the Apollo project.
>
> There would have been no moon landing unless it became national policy, in
> May of
> 1961.
>
By what instrument did a moon landing become national policy in May 1961?
Rand Simberg
P. McNicoll" <ronca...@earthlink.net> made the phosphor on my
monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:
>
>"Rand Simberg" <simberg.i...@org.trash> wrote in message
>news:44e81a1d....@news.giganews.com...
>>
>> All that meant was that they issued some feasibility study contracts.
>> NASA does this all the time with many things that never happen (in
>> fact, most of the time, the project fails to go forward).
>>
>
>It means the Apollo project existed at an earlier date than JFK would have
>been in a position to initiate it, thus it means that JFK did not initiate
>the Apollo project.
Then by that logic, Reagan didn't initiate the space station program,
either.
>> There would have been no moon landing unless it became national policy, in
>> May of
>> 1961.
>>
>
>By what instrument did a moon landing become national policy in May 1961?
http://history.nasa.gov/moondec.html
"On May 25, 1961, President John F. Kennedy announced before a special
joint session of Congress the dramatic and ambitious goal of sending
an American safely to the Moon before the end of the decade."
Clell Harmon
<fore...@earthcorp.removethistoreply.com> wrote:
>
>"Ken from Chicago" <kwicker1...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>news:wZSdne49RKO...@comcast.com...
>>
>> "Robert J. Kolker" <now...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
>> news:48d2bnF...@individual.net...
>> > Ken from Chicago wrote:
>> >
>> >> Six years after the Florida debacle, the one state in the nation which
>> >> had MORE election "irregularities", Illinois, show that "Chicago
>> >> politics" is second city to none and weirder than even science fiction.
>> >> Despite the upgrades to improve voting and ballot counting--or because
>of
>> >> them--this year's Cook county (the county that Chicago is in) polls
>> >> closed at 7pm
>> >
>> > Cook county, where the dead vote early and often. The same is said about
>> > Boston, MA.
>> >
>> > Bob Kolker
>> >
>>
>> How do you think JFK got the White House back in the '60s?
>>
>
>Kennedy: 303 electoral college votes
>
>Nixon: 219 electoral college votes
>
>Sounds like he got there by winning the election.
No fair letting mere facts interrupt a perfectly good ignorant
rant.
>
>
>
--
"My God, it's full of stupid!"
Clell Harmon
wrote:
>in article 44229dd8...@news-server.houston.rr.com, Bob at sp...@uce.gov
>wrote on 3/23/06 6:10 AM:
>
>> On Thu, 23 Mar 2006 07:30:27 -0500, "Robert J. Kolker"
>> <now...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>> They checked, Gore got more votes.
>>
>>>> Not popular vote in Florida. Bush won Florida fairly.
>>
>>> 1. If the black population of Florida could read instructions better.
>>> (Fat chance!)
>>
>>> 2. Little Old Jewish and Italian retired ladies could handle butterfly
>>> ballots as readily as they handle twelve Bingo Cards at a time.
>>
>>> THEN
>>
>>> Al Gore would have been President (as ugly as the thought is).
>>
>> The special interests were afraid of that flake. They would have done
>> anything to prevent him from becoming president. Clinton knew that and
>> that's why he chose him as his VP. It even prevented him from being
>> run out of office.
>>
>That's absolutely the reason I didn't want Clinton removed from office.
>Gore as in incumbent would have been an nightmare. Clinton should have left
>in handcuffs at the end of his term though.
Yeah. Getting a little strange is far worse than lying his
way into a war that gets a whole lot of American kids killed for no
good reason.
Steven P. McNicoll
"Rand Simberg" <simberg.i...@org.trash> wrote in message
>
> President Kennedy proposed the project to the nation in May of 1961.
> Had he not done that, there would have been no moon landings.
>
The project had been proposed in the fifties.
>
> http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4214/ch1-3.html
>
> "...in mid-1960 NASA announced its intention to award contracts to
> study the feasibility of a manned lunar mission. The project even had
> a name: Apollo. On October 25, study contracts were let to three
> aerospace firms.12
>
> NASA might conduct studies to show that man could go to the moon, and
> scientists might argue that manned space flight was of doubtful value,
> but Congress and the president would have to make the commitment, and
> the decisive stimulus was still lacking."
>
And you might look up the words "initiate" and "commit" in an effort to
understand what they actually mean, but I doubt that you will. You're
posting links that indicate you're wrong and you're not even aware of it.
Steven P. McNicoll
"Rand Simberg" <simberg.i...@org.trash> wrote in message
>
> http://history.nasa.gov/moondec.html
>
> "On May 25, 1961, President John F. Kennedy announced before a special
> joint session of Congress the dramatic and ambitious goal of sending
> an American safely to the Moon before the end of the decade."
>
By what instrument was that goal made national policy?
Rand Simberg
P. McNicoll" <ronca...@earthlink.net> made the phosphor on my
monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:
>
>"Rand Simberg" <simberg.i...@org.trash> wrote in message
>news:44e71980....@news.giganews.com...
>>
>> President Kennedy proposed the project to the nation in May of 1961.
>> Had he not done that, there would have been no moon landings.
>>
>
>The project had been proposed in the fifties.
Not by anyone in a position to make it happen.
Rand Simberg
P. McNicoll" <ronca...@earthlink.net> made the phosphor on my
monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:
>"Rand Simberg" <simberg.i...@org.trash> wrote in message
By what instrument is *any* goal made national policy? The president
announces a policy, requests funding for it from Congress, and
receives it. Or not. In this case, he did.
Clell Harmon
<Nuke-...@cox.net> wrote:
>"Earl Greida" <eGREGIO...@FREEyahoo.commie> wrote in
>news:GxhUf.4214$HW2....@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net:
>
>>
>> "The Nuclear Marine" <Nuke-...@cox.net> wrote in message
>> news:Xns978E71E487...@70.169.32.36...
>>> "Ken from Chicago" <kwicker1...@comcast.net> wrote in
>>> news:q6CdnTC756LRzbzZ...@comcast.com:
>>>
>>> > Six years after the Florida debacle, the one state in the nation
>>> > which had MORE election "irregularities", Illinois, show that
>>> > "Chicago politics" is second city to none and weirder than even
>>> > science fiction. Despite the upgrades to improve voting and ballot
>>> > counting--or because of them--this year's Cook county (the county
>>> > that Chicago is in) polls closed at 7pm Central and the results,
>>> > usually completed by 8 or 9 pm, as of 1 am in the morning are still
>>> > incomplete.
>>> >
>>> > IN YO FACE, RON MOORE!
>>> >
>>> > http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-060322countypres,1,5370
>>> > 617 .story?coll=chi-news-hed
>>> >
>>> > -- Ken from Chicago
>>> >
>>>
>>> Should the penalty for tampering with elections be death? State-wide
>>> and national, I think that should be the case.
>>>
>>> Know those shirts, bumper-stickers, etc. that say "Don't blame me, I
>>> voted for the other guy...", that's a crock. If you voted, you
>>> accepted a system that can select someone not your choice. However,
>>> as I vote and must go for such a risk, I demand that the votes be
>>> fair.
>>>
>>> So yes, Death to those that rig elections. There must be a reasonable
>>> belief in our voting system by the public. It must be open, and
>>> suseptible to investigation after the fact.
>>>
>>
>> Although Bush being declared president was an excellent example of a
>> fixed election I feel that overall this is not that big of a problem.
>> A more pressing problem is lobbyists writing legislation that benefits
>> them and their industry by buying sponsorship via elected officials.
>> I rewatched "The Aviator" last night and that contained an excellent
>> example of crooked politicians being bought and used by industry for
>> their self-interest. Even though that happened in the late 1940s I
>> bet it still is going on in Congress. How it can be stopped is beyond
>> me.
>>
>
>A Congressman himself is a lobbyist for his state and area. A good way to
>turn this around is cut back on all the perks Congressman get that help
>them get re-elected. Their staff should NEVER be more than 5 people if
>that much. More transparent donations help, however I think the internet
>has truly given the ability to track your Congressman better.
I have long said that the salary of a Congresscritter should
be $1 more than the median of his district. A Senators, $1 more than
the median of his state, and President $1 more than the median of the
country. VP should be an unpaid position, other than a per diem for
the days he's actually presiding over the senate -or- at a foriegn
funeral. All 'staff' is paid for out of the office holders pocket.
No honorarium, no campaign contributions from anyone or thing other
than private citizens (no unions, corportations, churches or whatever)
no trips other than those on official business (turn in all receipts,
and the seats will be in the cheap part of coach) Want to go home and
campaign? Pay for it yourself, or here's one of your 4 annual round
trip bus tickets home. Being from Hawaii would really suck.
Oh and the occasional pop quiz on any bill before congress.
If you don't pass the quiz, you vote doesn't count.
The above could not possibly hurt, and we might actually get
some decent public servents out of the deal.
>
>An the other hand, the Presidents cabinet is too large, cut out most of
>those positions and departments.
>
>For the gods' sakes, split up the 9th district. They hear 1/3 the cases
>of the country. Conservatives are abusing stats to call the 9th too
>liberal (yes, Supreme Court overturns more 9th district cases, 1/3 of all
>cases to the SCOTUS comes from the 9th district you moron), lets get rid
>of that advantage to talking wingnuts.
>
>Nuke
Steven P. McNicoll
"Rand Simberg" <simberg.i...@org.trash> wrote in message
>
> By what instrument is *any* goal made national policy?
>
I'll take that response to indicate you haven't the slightest idea.
Clell Harmon
>On Thu, 23 Mar 2006 04:11:39 GMT, rgo...@block.net (David Johnston)
>wrote:
>
>>>> Most people believe Lincoln started teh War of Northern Aggression to
>>>> free the slaves. That's how fucking stupid these "people" are.
>
>>Because of course the South started the war.
>
>Lincoln started the War.
By getting elected. The first of the Southern states
attempted to leave the union before he took the oath of office.
The south also fired the first shots...
>
>>>Didn't he want the South because it was a bit of an agricultural and
>>>industrial powerhouse at the time, and he wanted the added inflow of money
>>>that annexing the region would bring?
>
>>No.
>
>The Tariff of Abominations of 1828 was cause of secession which then
>forced Lincoln to start the War by conscripting 75,000 northern
>militia members into the Union Army.
>
>>>Didn't he also goad the South into attacking Fort Sumter, or something like
>>>that?
>
>>No.
>
>Yes. Lincoln was sending provisions to the Union soldiers on Sumter.
Steven P. McNicoll
"Rand Simberg" <simberg.i...@org.trash> wrote in message
>
> Not by anyone in a position to make it happen.
>
What is your nationality? What is your first language?
cloud dreamer
..
Robert J. Kolker
> On Thu, 23 Mar 2006 13:14:28 -0500, "Robert J. Kolker"
> <now...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>
>>It was JFK who proposed the mission. NASA took him up on it.
>
>
> You mean Congress authorized the funds...
>
> Werner was talking about a manned landing back in the 1950s.
Without JFK's grand proposal Werner v. Braun would just be another ex
Nazi rocket scientist.
Bob Kolker
Robert J. Kolker
> "Rand Simberg" <simberg.i...@org.trash> wrote in message
> news:44e51013....@news.giganews.com...
>
>>Then who do you fantasize did?
>>
>
>
> I don't know, but I do know that NASA announced Project Apollo on July 28,
> 1960, when Senator JFK was busily running for president.
Not announced. Proposed. It took JFK and Congress to come up with the
money. Twentfour billion 1960s dollars to leave a foot print on the
Moon. Not a very good deal, was it?
Bob Kolker
>
>
Steven P. McNicoll
"Robert J. Kolker" <now...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:48gf6nF...@individual.net...
>
> Without JFK's grand proposal Werner v. Braun would just be another ex Nazi
> rocket scientist.
>
Geez, another one that doesn't know what "proposal" means.
Robert J. Kolker
>
>
> Yes.
>
>
>>I did. I even shook Werner von Braun's hand.
>
>
> Well, whoop-de-doo.
This is the same Werner v Braun who famously said: "I aim for the stars
but sometimes I hit London and Antwerp."
Bob Kolker
Robert J. Kolker
Without JFKs pushing and Congress backing him, no Moon landings. It took
twentyfour billion 1960s dollars to put a footprint on the Moon.
Bob Kolker
>
>
Robert J. Kolker
>
>
> Yeah. Getting a little strange is far worse than lying his
> way into a war that gets a whole lot of American kids killed for no
> good reason.
Are you talking about Lyndon Johnson (the Texan) again? The Gulf of
Tonkein incident was made up out of whole cloth.
Bob Kolker
Steven P. McNicoll
>>
>> I don't know, but I do know that NASA announced Project Apollo on July
>> 28, 1960, when Senator JFK was busily running for president.
>
> Not announced. Proposed.
>
Announcements follow proposals.
Steven P. McNicoll
>
> Without JFKs pushing and Congress backing him, no Moon landings. It took
> twentyfour billion 1960s dollars to put a footprint on the Moon.
>
That may be, but it doesn't change the fact that the Apollo project was
initiated before JFK was even president-elect.
ddam...@yahoo.com
> Incident."
Hmm, aren't you thinking of the "Bay of Belfalas Incident?"