Read this if you never do anything else worthwhile this year...
pop slut
hey...
Taken, before anyone asks, from an e-mail doing the rounds, and also up on
the Mister Ridiculous.com message boards.
==========================================
Q: I'm not a lawyer and I don't understand the recent Supreme Court
decision in Bush v. Gore. Can you explain it to me?
A: Sure. I'm a lawyer. I read it. It says Bush wins, even if Gore got
the most votes.
Q: But wait a second. The US Supreme Court has to give a reason, right?
A: Right.
Q: So Bush wins because hand-counts are illegal?
A: Oh no. Six of the justices (two-thirds majority) believed the
hand-counts were legal and should be done.
Q: Oh. So the justices did not believe that the hand-counts would find
any
legal ballots?
A. Nope. The five conservative justices clearly held (and all nine
justices agreed) "that punch card balloting machines can produce an
unfortunate number of ballots which are not punched in a clean, complete
way
by the voter." So there are legal votes that should be counted but can't
be.
Q: Oh. Does this have something to do with states' rights? Don't
conservatives love that?
A: Generally yes. These five justices have held that the federal
government has no business telling a sovereign state university it can't
steal trade secrets just because such stealing is prohibited by law. Nor
does the federal government have any business telling a state that it
should
bar guns in schools. Nor can the federal government use the equal
protection clause to force states to take measures to stop violence
against
women.
Q: Is there an exception in this case?
A: Yes, the Gore exception. States have no rights to have their own
state
elections when it can result in Gore being elected President. This
decision
is limited to only this situation.
Q: C'mon. The Supremes didn't really say that. You're exaggerating.
A: Nope. They held "Our consideration is limited to the present
circumstances, or the problem of equal protection in election processes
generally presents many complexities."
Q: What complexities?
A: They don't say.
Q: I'll bet I know the reason. I heard Jim Baker say this. The votes
can't be counted because the Florida Supreme Court "changed the rules of
the
election after it was held." Right?
A. Dead wrong. The US Supreme Court made clear that the Florida Supreme
Court did not change the rules of the election. But the US Supreme Court
found the failure of the Florida Court to change the rules was wrong.
Q: Huh?
A: The Legislature declared that the only legal standard for counting
vote
is "clear intent of the voter." The Florida Court was condemned for not
adopting a clearer standard.
Q: I thought the Florida Court was not allowed to change the
Legislature's law after the election.
A: Right.
Q: So what's the problem?
A: They should have. The US Supreme Court said the Florida Supreme Court
should have "adopt[ed] adequate statewide standards for determining what
is
a legal vote"
Q: I thought only the Legislature could "adopt" new law.
A: Right.
Q: So if the Court had adopted new standards, I thought it would have
been
overturned.
A: Right. You're catching on.
Q: If the Court had adopted new standards, it would have been overturned
for changing the rules. And if it didn't, it's overturned for not
changing
the rules. That means that no matter what the Florida Supreme Court did,
legal votes could never be counted.
A: Right. Next question.
Q: Wait, wait. I thought the problem was "equal protection," that some
counties counted votes differently from others. Isn't that a problem?
A: It sure is. Across the nation, we vote in a hodgepodge of systems.
Some, like the optical-scanners in largely Republican-leaning counties
record 99.7% of the votes. Some, like the punchcard systems in largely
Democratic-leaning counties record only 97% of the votes. So
approximately
3% of Democratic votes are thrown in the trash can.
Q: Aha! That's a severe equal-protection problem!!!
A: No it's not. The Supreme Court wasn't worried about the 3% of
Democratic ballots thrown in the trashcan in Florida. That "complexity"
was
not a problem.
Q: Was it the butterfly ballots that violated Florida law and tricked
more
than 20,000 Democrats to vote for Buchanan or Gore and Buchanan.
A: Nope. The Supreme Court has no problem believing that Buchanan got
his
highest, best support in a precinct consisting of a Jewish old age home
with
Holocaust survivors, who apparently have changed their mind about Hitler.
Q: Yikes. So what was the serious equal protection problem?
A: The problem was neither the butterfly ballot nor the 3% of Democrats
(largely African-American) disenfranchised. The problem is that somewhat
less than .005% of the ballots may have been determined under slightly
different standards because judges sworn to uphold the law and doing their
best to accomplish the legislative mandate of "clear intent of the voter"
may have a slightly opinion about the voter's intent.
Q: Hmmm. OK, so if those votes are thrown out, you can still count the
votes where everyone agrees the voter's intent is clear?
A: Nope.
Q: Why not?
A: No time.
Q: No time to count legal votes where everyone, even Republicans, agree
the
intent is clear? Why not?
A: Because December 12 was yesterday.
Q: Is December 12 a deadline for counting votes?
A: No. January 6 is the deadline. In 1960, Hawaii's votes weren't
counted
until January 4.
Q: So why is December 12 important?
A: December 12 is a deadline by which Congress can't challenge the
results.
Q: What does the Congressional role have to do with the Supreme Court?
A: Nothing.
Q: But I thought ---
A: The Florida Supreme Court had earlier held it would like to complete
its
work by December 12 to make things easier for Congress. The United States
Supreme Court is trying to help the Florida Supreme Court out by forcing
the
Florida court to abide by a deadline that everyone agrees is not binding.
Q: But I thought the Florida Court was going to just barely have the
votes
counted by December 12.
A: They would have made it, but the five conservative justices stopped
the
recount last Saturday.
Q: Why?
A: Justice Scalia said some of the counts may not be legal.
Q: So why not separate the votes into piles, indentations for
Gore,hanging
chads for Bush, votes that everyone agrees went to one candidate or the
other so that we know exactly how Florida voted before determining who
won?
Then, if some ballots (say, indentations) have to be thrown out, the
American people will know right away who won Florida.
A. Great idea! The US Supreme Court rejected it. They held that such
counts would likely to produce election results showing Gore won and
Gore's
winning would cause "public acceptance" and that would "cast[] a cloud"
over
Bush's "legitimacy" that would harm "democratic stability."
Q: In other words, if America knows the truth that Gore won, they won't
accept the US Supreme Court overturning Gore's victory?
A: Yes.
Q: Is that a legal reason to stop recounts? or a political one?
A: Let's just say in all of American history and all of American law,
this
reason has no basis in law. But that doesn't stop the five conservatives
from creating new law out of thin air.
Q: Aren't these conservative justices against judicial activism?
A: Yes, when liberal judges are perceived to have done it.
Q: Well, if the December 12 deadline is not binding, why not count the
votes?
A: The US Supreme Court, after admitting the December 12 deadline is not
binding, set December 12 as a binding deadline at 10 p.m. on December 12.
Q: Didn't the US Supreme Court condemn the Florida Supreme Court for
arbitrarily setting a deadline?
A: Yes.
Q: But, but-
A: Not to worry. The US Supreme Court does not have to follow laws it
sets
for other courts.
Q: So who caused Florida to miss the December 12 deadline?
A: The Bush lawyers who first went to court to stop the recount, the
rent-a-mob in Miami that got paid Florida vacations for intimidating
officials, and the US Supreme Court for stopping the recount
Q: So who is punished for this behavior?
A: Gore, of course.
Q: Tell me this-Florida's laws are unconstitutional?
A: Yes
Q: And the laws of 50 states that allow votes to be cast or counted
differently are unconstitutional?
A: Yes. And 33 states have the "clear intent of the voter" standard that
the US Supreme Court found was illegal in Florida.
Q: Then why aren't the results of 33 states thrown out?
A: Um. Becaus...um..the Supreme Court doesn't say.
Q: But if Florida's certification includes counts expressly declared by
the US Supreme Court to be unconstitutional, we don't know who really won
the election there, right?
A: Right. Though a careful analysis by the Miami Herald shows Gore won
Florida by about 20,000 votes (excluding the butterfly ballot errors)
Q: So, what do we do, have a re-vote? throw out the entire state?
countunder a single uniform standard?
A: No. We just don't count the votes that favor Gore.
Q: That's completely bizarre! That sounds like rank political
favoritism!
Did the justices have any financial interest in the case?
A: Scalia's two sons are both lawyers working for Bush. Thomas's wife is
collecting applications for people who want to work in the Bush
administration.
Q: Why didn't they recuse themselves?
A: If either had recused himself, the vote would be 4-4, and the Florida
Supreme Court decision allowing recounts would have been affirmed.
Q: I can't believe the justices acted in such a blatantly political way.
A: Read the opinions for yourself:
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/supremecourt/00-949_dec12.fdf
(December 9 stay stopping the recount)
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/00pdf/00-949.pdf
(December 12 opinion)
Q: So what are the consequences of this?
A: The guy who got the most votes in the US and in Florida and under our
Constitution (Al Gore) will lose to America's second choice who won the
all
important 5-4 Supreme Court vote.
Q: I thought in a democracy, the guy with the most votes wins.
A: True, in a democracy. But America is not a democracy. In America in
2000, the guy with the most US Supreme Court votes wins.
Q: So what will happen to the Supreme Court when Bush becomes President.
A: He will appoint more justices in the mode of Thomas and Scalia to
ensure
that the will of the people is less and less respected. Soon lawless
justices may constitute 6-3 or even 7-2 on the court.
Q: Is there any way to stop this?
A: YES. No federal judge can be confirmed without a vote in the Senate.
It takes 60 votes to break a filibuster. If only 41 of the 50 Democratic
Senators stand up to Bush and his Supremes and say that they will not
approve a single judge appointed by him until a President can be
democratically elected in 2004, the judicial reign of terror can end and
one
day we can hope to return to the rule of law.
Q: What do I do now?
A: Email this to everyone you know, and write or call your senator,
reminding him that Gore beat Bush by several hundred thousand votes (three
times Kennedy's margin over Nixon) and that you believe that VOTERS rather
than JUDGES should determine who wins an election by counting every vote.
And to protect our judiciary from overturning the will of the people, you
want them to confirm NO NEW JUDGES until 2004 when a president is finally
chosen by most of the American people.
Mark H. Levine Attorney at Law
MarkLe...@aol.com
_______________________________________________________________
--
b m c ____ will swear for food
icq47130468
______________________________
www.misterridiculous.com/columns
www.savantmag.com
www.tbns.net/atii
Stephen Morgan
> [...] Bush wins, even if Gore got the most votes.
Hopefully.
Now, what should I say, "It's a Republic, not a Democracy", or "It's all
to do with that Electoral College shit"?
> Right.
No. No. Not at all.
> Q: So Bush wins because hand-counts are illegal?
Who cares about laws? They broke the florida ones to keep the election
going this long. Or as long as it did, anyway. Several times. Always in
favour of Gore.
> A: Oh no. Six of the justices (two-thirds majority) believed the
> hand-counts were legal and should be done.
Hand-counts are legal, so are deadlines.
> Q: Oh. So the justices did not believe that the hand-counts would find
> any
> legal ballots?
> A. Nope. The five conservative justices clearly held (and all nine
> justices agreed) "that punch card balloting machines can produce an
> unfortunate number of ballots which are not punched in a clean, complete
> way
> by the voter." So there are legal votes that should be counted but can't
> be.
Whereas the military votes don't count just because.
[...]
> Nor can the federal government use the equal
> protection clause to force states to take measures to stop violence
> against
> women.
I would hope not, seeing as women have had their very own VAWA since 1994,
that protects women and ONLY women, even though a lot more violence is
against men.
> Q: Is there an exception in this case?
> A: Yes, the Gore exception. States have no rights to have their own
> state
> elections when it can result in Gore being elected President. This
> decision
> is limited to only this situation.
>
> Q: C'mon. The Supremes didn't really say that. You're exaggerating.
> A: Nope. They held "Our consideration is limited to the present
> circumstances, or the problem of equal protection in election processes
> generally presents many complexities."
Not "exaggerating", just "talking shit". This is perfectly reasonable,
they just say it's a unique situation.
> Q: What complexities?
> A: They don't say.
They don't think they have to spell it out.
> Q: Wait, wait. I thought the problem was "equal protection," that some
> counties counted votes differently from others. Isn't that a problem?
> A: It sure is. Across the nation, we vote in a hodgepodge of systems.
> Some, like the optical-scanners in largely Republican-leaning counties
> record 99.7% of the votes. Some, like the punchcard systems in largely
> Democratic-leaning counties record only 97% of the votes. So
> approximately
> 3% of Democratic votes are thrown in the trash can.
And 3% of Republican votes...
> Q: Was it the butterfly ballots that violated Florida law and tricked
> more
> than 20,000 Democrats to vote for Buchanan or Gore and Buchanan.
> A: Nope. The Supreme Court has no problem believing that Buchanan got
> his
> highest, best support in a precinct consisting of a Jewish old age home
> with
> Holocaust survivors, who apparently have changed their mind about Hitler.
Well, if they're as stupid as they would seem by punching the wrong hole,
who cares?
> Q: So why not [...] indentations for
> Gore,
They did that.
> hanging
> chads for Bush,
Replace Bush with Gore and they did it.
> votes that everyone agrees went to one candidate or the
> other so that we know exactly how Florida voted before determining who
> won?
> Then, if some ballots (say, indentations) have to be thrown out, the
> American people will know right away who won Florida.
> A. Great idea! The US Supreme Court rejected it.
I wouldn't have credited them with such intelligence.
> Q: In other words, if America knows the truth that Gore won, they won't
> accept the US Supreme Court overturning Gore's victory?
> A: Yes.
I think most of them know Gore got the popular vote. Of course, most of
them don't care.
> Q: So who caused Florida to miss the December 12 deadline?
> A: The Bush lawyers who first went to court to stop the recount,
Which one?
> the
> rent-a-mob in Miami that got paid Florida vacations for intimidating
> officials,
The Gore types intimidated voters instead.
> Q: So who is punished for this behavior?
> A:
No-one.
> Q: And the laws of 50 states that allow votes to be cast or counted
> differently are unconstitutional?
> A: Yes. And 33 states have the "clear intent of the voter" standard that
> the US Supreme Court found was illegal in Florida.
>
> Q: Then why aren't the results of 33 states thrown out?
> A: Um. Becaus...um..the Supreme Court doesn't say.
Why isn't the law about Welshmen in colchester being thrown out?
> Q: So, what do we do, have a re-vote? throw out the entire state?
> countunder a single uniform standard?
> A: No. We just don't count the votes
That for some reason can't be counted.
> Q: So what are the consequences of this?
> A: The guy who got the most votes in the US and in Florida and under our
> Constitution (Al Gore) will lose to America's second choice who won the
> all
> important 5-4 Supreme Court vote.
Can you name even one country that puts someone in charge because they got
the most votes?
> Q: I thought in a democracy, the guy with the most votes wins.
> A: True, in a democracy. But America is not a democracy. In America in
> 2000, the guy with the most US Supreme Court votes wins.
America is a republic, not a democracy. The United Kingdom is a
constitutional Monarchy, not a democracy. I can't think of a democracy.
> Q: So what will happen to the Supreme Court when Bush becomes President.
> A: He will appoint more justices in the mode of Thomas and Scalia to
> ensure
> that the will of the people is less and less respected. Soon lawless
> justices may constitute 6-3 or even 7-2 on the court.
Good. Gore has been out-conspired.
> Q: Is there any way to stop this?
Yes. Take up arms against the government, or, failing that, the nearest
police station.
> A: YES. No federal judge can be confirmed without a vote in the Senate.
> It takes 60 votes to break a filibuster. If only 41 of the 50 Democratic
> Senators stand up to Bush and his Supremes and say that they will not
> approve a single judge appointed by him until a President can be
> democratically elected in 2004, the judicial reign of terror can end and
> one
> day we can hope to return to the rule of law.
No, you're in America.
> Q: What do I do now?
> A: Email this to everyone you know,
It'll get eaten by a carnivore.
> and write or call your senator,
> reminding him that Gore beat Bush by several hundred thousand votes (three
> times Kennedy's margin over Nixon) and that you believe that VOTERS rather
> than JUDGES should determine who wins an election by counting every vote.
That's proportional representation and is bloody undemocratic.
> And to protect our judiciary from overturning the will of the people, you
> want them to confirm NO NEW JUDGES until 2004
Oh, a sane solution...
> when a president is finally
> chosen by most of the American people.
Good luck getting most of the American people to vote.
> Mark Levine Attorney at Law
> MarkLe...@aol.com
An attorney who doesn't know he doesn't live in a democracy.
--
"It was always the women, and above all the young ones, who were the most
bigoted adherents of the Party, the swallowers of slogans, the amateur
spies and nosers-out of unorthodoxy." -- George Orwell, "1984"
http://www.av1611.org/sound/misc/dighell.ram
http://ncavalier.port5.com/
pop slut
Stephen Morgan <ncav...@crosswinds.net> wrote in message
news:slrn93t5ih.3vv...@wildcard.bar...
> In alt.teens.anti-idiot, pop slut wrote:
>
> > [...] Bush wins, even if Gore got the most votes.
>
> Hopefully.
> Now, what should I say, "It's a Republic, not a Democracy", or "It's all
> to do with that Electoral College shit"?
Bush winning is a frigging disaster, for the reasons I've already pointed
out somewhere, but also because Gore had more votes, yet were ignored in
order to get Bush in.. America has fallen to a new low.
> No. No. Not at all.
>
> > Q: So Bush wins because hand-counts are illegal?
>
> Who cares about laws? They broke the florida ones to keep the election
> going this long. Or as long as it did, anyway. Several times. Always in
> favour of Gore.
No, they didn't. If they did, Gore would have won. It's completely
unconstituitional to claim any votes as being illegal just because there's a
high chance they're going to go against you, something the Republicans knew
would happen if the remaining ballots were counted. They cheated to win.
> > A: Oh no. Six of the justices (two-thirds majority) believed the
> > hand-counts were legal and should be done.
>
> Hand-counts are legal, so are deadlines.
It says somewhere in this there is a final deadline of somwhere in January
for recounts and the such. The deadline was nowhere near reached. And even
then, counting all the votes is more important.
> > Q: Oh. So the justices did not believe that the hand-counts would find
> > any
> > legal ballots?
> > A. Nope. The five conservative justices clearly held (and all nine
> > justices agreed) "that punch card balloting machines can produce an
> > unfortunate number of ballots which are not punched in a clean, complete
> > way
> > by the voter." So there are legal votes that should be counted but can't
> > be.
>
> Whereas the military votes don't count just because.
I believe the military votes were among those disqualified.
> > Nor can the federal government use the equal
> > protection clause to force states to take measures to stop violence
> > against
> > women.
>
> I would hope not, seeing as women have had their very own VAWA since 1994,
> that protects women and ONLY women, even though a lot more violence is
> against men.
Bullshit. The simple fact is that while therte is violence against men,
there is still more against women. It's wrong to ignore the VAM, but
frankly, women need more protection given men tend to be stronger
physically.
> > Q: Is there an exception in this case?
> > A: Yes, the Gore exception. States have no rights to have their own
> > state
> > elections when it can result in Gore being elected President. This
> > decision
> > is limited to only this situation.
> >
> > Q: C'mon. The Supremes didn't really say that. You're exaggerating.
> > A: Nope. They held "Our consideration is limited to the present
> > circumstances, or the problem of equal protection in election processes
> > generally presents many complexities."
>
> Not "exaggerating", just "talking shit". This is perfectly reasonable,
> they just say it's a unique situation.
But why the hell is a unique situation being created? It shouldn't be. Gore
should be the new president, only for this "special case". The floodgates
are open, and unless a clear majority gets the next president in, this is
all going to happen again in four years time. It's supposed to be "one man,
one vote", not "one man, one crack team of lawyers".
> > Q: What complexities?
> > A: They don't say.
>
> They don't think they have to spell it out.
>
> > Q: Wait, wait. I thought the problem was "equal protection," that some
> > counties counted votes differently from others. Isn't that a problem?
> > A: It sure is. Across the nation, we vote in a hodgepodge of systems.
> > Some, like the optical-scanners in largely Republican-leaning counties
> > record 99.7% of the votes. Some, like the punchcard systems in largely
> > Democratic-leaning counties record only 97% of the votes. So
> > approximately
> > 3% of Democratic votes are thrown in the trash can.
>
> And 3% of Republican votes...
The strict majority would be democratic. It'd be more 2% Democrat, 1%
Republican. Democrats would still have the higher margin.
{snippage of opinionations}
> > Q: So who caused Florida to miss the December 12 deadline?
> > A: The Bush lawyers who first went to court to stop the recount,
>
> Which one?
It's seen as just one big one, I think.
> > Q: So who is punished for this behavior?
> > A:
>
> No-one.
The lot of us. Bush Junior is damn likely to take after Senior in his
trigger happiness, and is likely to start a lot of international conflicts
that Gore would have eased his way around.
> > Q: And the laws of 50 states that allow votes to be cast or counted
> > differently are unconstitutional?
> > A: Yes. And 33 states have the "clear intent of the voter" standard that
> > the US Supreme Court found was illegal in Florida.
> >
> > Q: Then why aren't the results of 33 states thrown out?
> > A: Um. Becaus...um..the Supreme Court doesn't say.
>
> Why isn't the law about Welshmen in colchester being thrown out?
Does that invalidate his right to vote?
> > Q: So, what do we do, have a re-vote? throw out the entire state?
> > countunder a single uniform standard?
> > A: No. We just don't count the votes
>
> That for some reason can't be counted.
Because the American Legal System is in enough of a tatters to get away with
destroying the last vestiges of its democracy.
> > Q: So what are the consequences of this?
> > A: The guy who got the most votes in the US and in Florida and under our
> > Constitution (Al Gore) will lose to America's second choice who won the
> > all
> > important 5-4 Supreme Court vote.
>
> Can you name even one country that puts someone in charge because they got
> the most votes?
Ireland. England. France. Germany. Italy. Most damn nations in the western
world, funnily.
> > Q: I thought in a democracy, the guy with the most votes wins.
> > A: True, in a democracy. But America is not a democracy. In America in
> > 2000, the guy with the most US Supreme Court votes wins.
>
> America is a republic, not a democracy. The United Kingdom is a
> constitutional Monarchy, not a democracy. I can't think of a democracy.
Ireland. Ha ha! And does the monarchy in England have any actual power any
more, rather than ceremonial?
> > Q: So what will happen to the Supreme Court when Bush becomes President.
> > A: He will appoint more justices in the mode of Thomas and Scalia to
> > ensure
> > that the will of the people is less and less respected. Soon lawless
> > justices may constitute 6-3 or even 7-2 on the court.
>
> Good. Gore has been out-conspired.
David. Go and read Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail '72, and The
Great SHark Hunt (both by Hunter S. Thompson). Come back shorn of all your
teenage conspiracy theories, and realise that this is simply wrong. To
conspire means doing it in secret- we can see the Republicans fucking about
in broad daylight.
> > Q: Is there any way to stop this?
>
> Yes. Take up arms against the government, or, failing that, the nearest
> police station.
See above.
> > A: YES. No federal judge can be confirmed without a vote in the Senate.
> > It takes 60 votes to break a filibuster. If only 41 of the 50 Democratic
> > Senators stand up to Bush and his Supremes and say that they will not
> > approve a single judge appointed by him until a President can be
> > democratically elected in 2004, the judicial reign of terror can end and
> > one
> > day we can hope to return to the rule of law.
>
> No, you're in America.
>
> > Q: What do I do now?
> > A: Email this to everyone you know,
>
> It'll get eaten by a carnivore.
>
> > and write or call your senator,
> > reminding him that Gore beat Bush by several hundred thousand votes
(three
> > times Kennedy's margin over Nixon) and that you believe that VOTERS
rather
> > than JUDGES should determine who wins an election by counting every
vote.
>
> That's proportional representation and is bloody undemocratic.
I'll take this a sarcasm. I am just in no mood to rant at you.
> > And to protect our judiciary from overturning the will of the people,
you
> > want them to confirm NO NEW JUDGES until 2004
>
> Oh, a sane solution...
>
> > when a president is finally
> > chosen by most of the American people.
>
> Good luck getting most of the American people to vote.
>
> > Mark Levine Attorney at Law
> > MarkLe...@aol.com
>
> An attorney who doesn't know he doesn't live in a democracy.
>
> --
> "It was always the women, and above all the young ones, who were the most
> bigoted adherents of the Party, the swallowers of slogans, the amateur
> spies and nosers-out of unorthodoxy." -- George Orwell, "1984"
That book gets more relevant by the day. Ironic fact- a typo meant it didn't
get to be called by the name Orwell wanted- 1994.
The Happy Reaper
most
> > bigoted adherents of the Party, the swallowers of slogans, the amateur
> > spies and nosers-out of unorthodoxy." -- George Orwell, "1984"
>
>
> That book gets more relevant by the day. Ironic fact- a typo meant it
didn't
> get to be called by the name Orwell wanted- 1994.
Seeing as Winston later revises his opinion on women... after meeting Julia,
I'd say that is a bit of a none quote. There is one good female character
and one good male in the whole book, both of whom get corrupted, equality
all round. To take that passage so ridiculously out of context is nothing
short of moronic.
--
"round here, we are carving out our names, round here, we all look the
same" - The Blackpool Tourist Board
The Happy Reaper
pop slut
The Happy Reaper <happy...@ciahq.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:91mfpo$kvc$1...@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk...
> > > "It was always the women, and above all the young ones, who were the
> most
> > > bigoted adherents of the Party, the swallowers of slogans, the amateur
> > > spies and nosers-out of unorthodoxy." -- George Orwell, "1984"
> >
> >
> > That book gets more relevant by the day. Ironic fact- a typo meant it
> didn't
> > get to be called by the name Orwell wanted- 1994.
>
> Seeing as Winston later revises his opinion on women... after meeting
Julia,
> I'd say that is a bit of a none quote. There is one good female character
> and one good male in the whole book, both of whom get corrupted, equality
> all round. To take that passage so ridiculously out of context is nothing
> short of moronic.
If this was a shot at me- bugger, I didn't read the quote properly (missed
the women part), I just meant the increasing fuckery of government happening
in the States.
Now if it was to David- Ha! I knew that!
The Happy Reaper
> > most
> > > > bigoted adherents of the Party, the swallowers of slogans, the
amateur
> > > > spies and nosers-out of unorthodoxy." -- George Orwell, "1984"
> > >
> > >
> > > That book gets more relevant by the day. Ironic fact- a typo meant it
> > didn't
> > > get to be called by the name Orwell wanted- 1994.
> >
> > Seeing as Winston later revises his opinion on women... after meeting
> Julia,
> > I'd say that is a bit of a none quote. There is one good female
character
> > and one good male in the whole book, both of whom get corrupted,
equality
> > all round. To take that passage so ridiculously out of context is
nothing
> > short of moronic.
>
> If this was a shot at me- bugger, I didn't read the quote properly (missed
> the women part), I just meant the increasing fuckery of government
happening
> in the States.
>
> Now if it was to David- Ha! I knew that!
Yeah, it was at David. I know what you meant and yeah... 1984 is almost
totally accurate today. I like the songs being manufactured by machine bit,
wonderful.
Swiver
swiver
pop slut wrote in message ...
The Happy Reaper
>
> swiver
Oh, that's alright, it not really important anyway. I mean, who cares if one
of the most important men in the world was elected illegally? I'm going to
watch Darma and Greg and eat a massive bag of crisps (No, they are not
called fucking 'potato chips').
pop slut
> > oh geez, thats waaayyyy too long for me to read...sorry
> >
> > swiver
>
> Oh, that's alright, it not really important anyway. I mean, who cares if
one
> of the most important men in the world was elected illegally? I'm going to
> watch Darma and Greg and eat a massive bag of crisps (No, they are not
> called fucking 'potato chips').
My pseudo-girlfriend makes me watch that show. I think I'm in danger of
getting addicted. And I don't even have the comfort of crisps.
The Happy Reaper
> > >
> > > swiver
> >
> > Oh, that's alright, it not really important anyway. I mean, who cares if
> one
> > of the most important men in the world was elected illegally? I'm going
to
> > watch Darma and Greg and eat a massive bag of crisps (No, they are not
> > called fucking 'potato chips').
>
> My pseudo-girlfriend makes me watch that show. I think I'm in danger of
> getting addicted. And I don't even have the comfort of crisps.
Kill her. It sounds harsh but it's the only way. Call it a mercy killing...
you bi-sexual or something now?
pop slut
> > > > oh geez, thats waaayyyy too long for me to read...sorry
> > > >
> > > > swiver
> > >
> > > Oh, that's alright, it not really important anyway. I mean, who cares
if
> > one
> > > of the most important men in the world was elected illegally? I'm
going
> to
> > > watch Darma and Greg and eat a massive bag of crisps (No, they are not
> > > called fucking 'potato chips').
> >
> > My pseudo-girlfriend makes me watch that show. I think I'm in danger of
> > getting addicted. And I don't even have the comfort of crisps.
>
> Kill her. It sounds harsh but it's the only way. Call it a mercy
killing...
> you bi-sexual or something now?
no, straight...
Stephen Morgan
>
> Stephen Morgan <ncav...@crosswinds.net> wrote in message
> news:slrn93t5ih.3vv...@wildcard.bar...
> > In alt.teens.anti-idiot, pop slut wrote:
> >
> > > [...] Bush wins, even if Gore got the most votes.
> >
> > Hopefully.
> > Now, what should I say, "It's a Republic, not a Democracy", or "It's all
> > to do with that Electoral College shit"?
>
> Bush winning is a frigging disaster,
Agreed. So was Blair winning. So would Gore winning have been. At least
John Major was pretty safe, the type of boring you can be sure isn't a
devil-worshipping tosser.
> for the reasons I've already pointed
> out somewhere, but also because Gore had more votes, yet were ignored in
> order to get Bush in..
Well, they ignored Bush votes too, and the military votes, and they still
haven't figured out how thousands of seemingly normal people from florida
managed to fuck up a ballot used without problems in several other places
in the country. Nor how those people on TV *knew* they had fucked up.
> America has fallen to a new low.
They're both devil-worshipping bastards. Gore would definitely be
disastrous, while Bush will only probably be disastous. Bush, however,
will be far more disastrous.
> > > Q: So Bush wins because hand-counts are illegal?
> >
> > Who cares about laws? They broke the florida ones to keep the election
> > going this long. Or as long as it did, anyway. Several times. Always in
> > favour of Gore.
>
> No, they didn't. If they did, Gore would have won.
Not in favour enough of Gore to win, but still in his favour.
> It's completely
> unconstituitional to claim any votes as being illegal just because there's a
> high chance they're going to go against you, something the Republicans knew
> would happen if the remaining ballots were counted. They cheated to win.
They out-cheated the Democrats.
> > > A: Oh no. Six of the justices (two-thirds majority) believed the
> > > hand-counts were legal and should be done.
> >
> > Hand-counts are legal, so are deadlines.
>
> It says somewhere in this there is a final deadline of somwhere in January
> for recounts and the such. The deadline was nowhere near reached.
Just repeating Virgin Radio News. Perhaps they meant the Florida Supreme
Court imposed deadline, if there was one.
> And even
> then, counting all the votes is more important.
No, you break one law for a good reason and before you know it there's
anarchy. No, that's not a good thing.
> > > Nor can the federal government use the equal
> > > protection clause to force states to take measures to stop violence
> > > against
> > > women.
> >
> > I would hope not, seeing as women have had their very own VAWA since 1994,
> > that protects women and ONLY women, even though a lot more violence is
> > against men.
>
> Bullshit. The simple fact is that while therte is violence against men,
> there is still more against women.
This *is* bullshit. There are over three times as many violent crimes per
annum in America against men than against women. Even in domestic
situations it's nearly a fifty-fifty split.
> It's wrong to ignore the VAM, but
> frankly, women need more protection given men tend to be stronger
> physically.
Not strong enough for them to need special laws that are only for women
that put men around the level of "persecuted".
> > > Q: Is there an exception in this case?
> > > A: Yes, the Gore exception. States have no rights to have their own
> > > state
> > > elections when it can result in Gore being elected President. This
> > > decision
> > > is limited to only this situation.
> > >
> > > Q: C'mon. The Supremes didn't really say that. You're exaggerating.
> > > A: Nope. They held "Our consideration is limited to the present
> > > circumstances, or the problem of equal protection in election processes
> > > generally presents many complexities."
> >
> > Not "exaggerating", just "talking shit". This is perfectly reasonable,
> > they just say it's a unique situation.
>
> But why the hell is a unique situation being created?
Well, every situation is unique, you know.
> It shouldn't be. Gore
> should be the new president,
No, bush stole it, unfair and dirty.
> only for this "special case". The floodgates
> are open, and unless a clear majority gets the next president in,
Majorities are a bad thing, the Electoral College is the system they are
meant to have.
> this is
> all going to happen again in four years time. It's supposed to be "one man,
> one vote", not "one man, one crack team of lawyers".
Why should it hapen again in four years? Maybe they'll have made their
minds up more decisively by then.
> > > Q: What complexities?
> > > A: They don't say.
> >
> > They don't think they have to spell it out.
> >
> > > Q: Wait, wait. I thought the problem was "equal protection," that some
> > > counties counted votes differently from others. Isn't that a problem?
> > > A: It sure is. Across the nation, we vote in a hodgepodge of systems.
> > > Some, like the optical-scanners in largely Republican-leaning counties
> > > record 99.7% of the votes. Some, like the punchcard systems in largely
> > > Democratic-leaning counties record only 97% of the votes. So
> > > approximately
> > > 3% of Democratic votes are thrown in the trash can.
> >
> > And 3% of Republican votes...
>
> The strict majority would be democratic. It'd be more 2% Democrat, 1%
> Republican. Democrats would still have the higher margin.
97% votes were counted, so 3% are uncounted, 3% of the votes of each then,
maybe, was my thoughts.
> {snippage of opinionations}
Aww...
> > > Q: So who is punished for this behavior?
> > > A:
> >
> > No-one.
>
> The lot of us. Bush Junior is damn likely to take after Senior in his
> trigger happiness,
I thought he hated the rest of the world and wanted nothing to do with it.
Should be a fun four years.
> and is likely to start a lot of international conflicts
> that Gore would have eased his way around.
There's a reason he's called "Bore", den.
> > > Q: And the laws of 50 states that allow votes to be cast or counted
> > > differently are unconstitutional?
> > > A: Yes. And 33 states have the "clear intent of the voter" standard that
> > > the US Supreme Court found was illegal in Florida.
> > >
> > > Q: Then why aren't the results of 33 states thrown out?
> > > A: Um. Becaus...um..the Supreme Court doesn't say.
> >
> > Why isn't the law about Welshmen in colchester being thrown out?
>
> Does that invalidate his right to vote?
Not directly, although it could have an adverse effect on his ability to
vote.
> > > Q: So, what do we do, have a re-vote? throw out the entire state?
> > > countunder a single uniform standard?
> > > A: No. We just don't count the votes
> >
> > That for some reason can't be counted.
>
> Because the American Legal System is in enough of a tatters to get away with
> destroying the last vestiges of its democracy.
It's not a democracy, it's a republic. God gave the Americans the
electoral college to make sure the gits who don't like it get fucked off.
> > > Q: So what are the consequences of this?
> > > A: The guy who got the most votes in the US and in Florida and under our
> > > Constitution (Al Gore) will lose to America's second choice who won the
> > > all
> > > important 5-4 Supreme Court vote.
> >
> > Can you name even one country that puts someone in charge because they got
> > the most votes?
>
> Ireland. England. France. Germany. Italy. Most damn nations in the western
> world, funnily.
No. The United Kingdom gets it's leader, depending on who you count, by
right of birth or by being the leader of the party with the most seats in
parliament. The MP gets the most votes, the leader itself could easily get
in with less than the enemy.
> > > Q: I thought in a democracy, the guy with the most votes wins.
> > > A: True, in a democracy. But America is not a democracy. In America in
> > > 2000, the guy with the most US Supreme Court votes wins.
> >
> > America is a republic, not a democracy. The United Kingdom is a
> > constitutional Monarchy, not a democracy. I can't think of a democracy.
>
> Ireland. Ha ha! And does the monarchy in England have any actual power any
> more, rather than ceremonial?
Dunno. Figurehead thing, I think. I don't think Ireland are. Technically,
my town is because of the way it elects it's leaders, the country isn't,
because the leader is just the head of the party witht he most seats, not
event he most popular party (although it would normally be that too, it
doesn't have to be).
> > > Q: So what will happen to the Supreme Court when Bush becomes President.
> > > A: He will appoint more justices in the mode of Thomas and Scalia to
> > > ensure
> > > that the will of the people is less and less respected. Soon lawless
> > > justices may constitute 6-3 or even 7-2 on the court.
> >
> > Good. Gore has been out-conspired.
>
> David. Go and read Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail '72, and The
> Great SHark Hunt (both by Hunter S. Thompson).
No money, no time, no will.
> Come back shorn of all your
> teenage conspiracy theories, and realise that this is simply wrong. To
> conspire means doing it in secret- we can see the Republicans fucking about
> in broad daylight.
And the Dems.
> > > Q: Is there any way to stop this?
> >
> > Yes. Take up arms against the government, or, failing that, the nearest
> > police station.
>
> See above.
What relation have conspiracies to taking up arms against the government?
> > > A: YES. No federal judge can be confirmed without a vote in the Senate.
> > > It takes 60 votes to break a filibuster. If only 41 of the 50 Democratic
> > > Senators stand up to Bush and his Supremes and say that they will not
> > > approve a single judge appointed by him until a President can be
> > > democratically elected in 2004, the judicial reign of terror can end and
> > > one
> > > day we can hope to return to the rule of law.
> >
> > No, you're in America.
> >
> > > Q: What do I do now?
> > > A: Email this to everyone you know,
> >
> > It'll get eaten by a carnivore.
> >
> > > and write or call your senator,
> > > reminding him that Gore beat Bush by several hundred thousand votes
> (three
> > > times Kennedy's margin over Nixon) and that you believe that VOTERS
> rather
> > > than JUDGES should determine who wins an election by counting every
> vote.
> >
> > That's proportional representation and is bloody undemocratic.
>
> I'll take this a sarcasm. I am just in no mood to rant at you.
It was sarcasm. The whole point was that it [PR] is democracy, and
America - guardian of democracy - isn't, it's a republic.
> > > And to protect our judiciary from overturning the will of the people,
> you
> > > want them to confirm NO NEW JUDGES until 2004
> >
> > Oh, a sane solution...
> >
> > > when a president is finally
> > > chosen by most of the American people.
> >
> > Good luck getting most of the American people to vote.
> >
> > > Mark Levine Attorney at Law
> > > MarkLe...@aol.com
> >
> > An attorney who doesn't know he doesn't live in a democracy.
> >
> > --
> > "It was always the women, and above all the young ones, who were the most
> > bigoted adherents of the Party, the swallowers of slogans, the amateur
> > spies and nosers-out of unorthodoxy." -- George Orwell, "1984"
>
>
> That book gets more relevant by the day. Ironic fact- a typo meant it didn't
> get to be called by the name Orwell wanted- 1994.
Call me paranoid, but I think you're talking shit. But I could be wrong.
--
"It was always the women, and above all the young ones, who were the most
bigoted adherents of the Party, the swallowers of slogans, the amateur
spies and nosers-out of unorthodoxy." -- George Orwell, "1984"
http://www.av1611.org/sound/misc/dighell.ram
http://ncavalier.port5.com/
Stephen Morgan
> > oh geez, thats waaayyyy too long for me to read...sorry
> >
> > swiver
>
> Oh, that's alright, it not really important anyway. I mean, who cares if one
> of the most important men in the world was elected illegally? I'm going to
> watch Darma and Greg and eat a massive bag of crisps (No, they are not
> called fucking 'potato chips').
I watched that. It's not very good, but I was bored. I ate a Wispa.
pop slut
> In alt.teens.anti-idiot, pop slut wrote:
> >
> > Stephen Morgan <ncav...@crosswinds.net> wrote in message
> > news:slrn93t5ih.3vv...@wildcard.bar...
> > > In alt.teens.anti-idiot, pop slut wrote:
> > >
> > > > [...] Bush wins, even if Gore got the most votes.
> > >
> > > Hopefully.
> > > Now, what should I say, "It's a Republic, not a Democracy", or "It's
all
> > > to do with that Electoral College shit"?
> >
> > Bush winning is a frigging disaster,
>
> Agreed. So was Blair winning. So would Gore winning have been. At least
> John Major was pretty safe, the type of boring you can be sure isn't a
> devil-worshipping tosser.
Gore was a much safer bet than Bush. That's the whole point.
> > for the reasons I've already pointed
> > out somewhere, but also because Gore had more votes, yet were ignored in
> > order to get Bush in..
>
> Well, they ignored Bush votes too, and the military votes, and they still
> haven't figured out how thousands of seemingly normal people from florida
> managed to fuck up a ballot used without problems in several other places
> in the country. Nor how those people on TV *knew* they had fucked up.
1) There were far more uncounted Gore votes than Bush's. This is the
problem- the Republicans invalidated the rights of people who wanted someone
else.
2) The military votes were along the same lines of the Florida votes.
3) A lot of the votes discounted were simply because the punch wasn't
complete and a timy bit of the card was hanging on.
> > America has fallen to a new low.
>
> They're both devil-worshipping bastards. Gore would definitely be
> disastrous, while Bush will only probably be disastous. Bush, however,
> will be far more disastrous.
There is no probably about Bush. At least Gore would maintain the economy.
> > > > Q: So Bush wins because hand-counts are illegal?
> > >
> > > Who cares about laws? They broke the florida ones to keep the election
> > > going this long. Or as long as it did, anyway. Several times. Always
in
> > > favour of Gore.
> >
> > No, they didn't. If they did, Gore would have won.
>
> Not in favour enough of Gore to win, but still in his favour.
It was.
> > It's completely
> > unconstituitional to claim any votes as being illegal just because
there's a
> > high chance they're going to go against you, something the Republicans
knew
> > would happen if the remaining ballots were counted. They cheated to win.
>
> They out-cheated the Democrats.
But how did the Democrats cheat?
> > > > A: Oh no. Six of the justices (two-thirds majority) believed the
> > > > hand-counts were legal and should be done.
> > >
> > > Hand-counts are legal, so are deadlines.
> >
> > It says somewhere in this there is a final deadline of somwhere in
January
> > for recounts and the such. The deadline was nowhere near reached.
>
> Just repeating Virgin Radio News. Perhaps they meant the Florida Supreme
> Court imposed deadline, if there was one.
Ah yes, what a valuable source...
> > And even
> > then, counting all the votes is more important.
>
> No, you break one law for a good reason and before you know it there's
> anarchy. No, that's not a good thing.
I mean if it means delaying things one day so that all the votes are
counbted, it removes this kind of problem. Counting the votes shouldn't have
this kind of deadline. They don't have it in Ireland, which means there's
rarely a need for recount (small scale, yes, but the point is the same).
> > > > Nor can the federal government use the equal
> > > > protection clause to force states to take measures to stop violence
> > > > against
> > > > women.
> > >
> > > I would hope not, seeing as women have had their very own VAWA since
1994,
> > > that protects women and ONLY women, even though a lot more violence is
> > > against men.
> >
> > Bullshit. The simple fact is that while therte is violence against men,
> > there is still more against women.
>
> This *is* bullshit. There are over three times as many violent crimes per
> annum in America against men than against women. Even in domestic
> situations it's nearly a fifty-fifty split.
And how many of those are men against men?
> > But why the hell is a unique situation being created?
>
> Well, every situation is unique, you know.
Shut up. They are creating a situation that can be used as a benchmark at
evry single election from here on in. It's a fucking disaster.
> > only for this "special case". The floodgates
> > are open, and unless a clear majority gets the next president in,
>
> Majorities are a bad thing, the Electoral College is the system they are
> meant to have.
>
> > this is
> > all going to happen again in four years time. It's supposed to be "one
man,
> > one vote", not "one man, one crack team of lawyers".
>
> Why should it hapen again in four years? Maybe they'll have made their
> minds up more decisively by then.
If they don't, it's going to be an even longer repeat, because they'll have
had a chance to plan for this.
> > {snippage of opinionations}
>
> Aww...
They're irrelevant.
> > > > Q: So who is punished for this behavior?
> > > > A:
> > >
> > > No-one.
> >
> > The lot of us. Bush Junior is damn likely to take after Senior in his
> > trigger happiness,
>
> I thought he hated the rest of the world and wanted nothing to do with it.
> Should be a fun four years.
Nope. The guy is pretty likely to start some wars imo.
> > > Why isn't the law about Welshmen in colchester being thrown out?
> >
> > Does that invalidate his right to vote?
>
> Not directly, although it could have an adverse effect on his ability to
> vote.
So what exactly is this law?
> > > > Q: So, what do we do, have a re-vote? throw out the entire state?
> > > > countunder a single uniform standard?
> > > > A: No. We just don't count the votes
> > >
> > > That for some reason can't be counted.
> >
> > Because the American Legal System is in enough of a tatters to get away
with
> > destroying the last vestiges of its democracy.
>
> It's not a democracy, it's a republic. God gave the Americans the
> electoral college to make sure the gits who don't like it get fucked off.
I think it's actually defined as a federal state. Each state is independent
of the rest in their rulings. Or something. The US Supreme court shouldn't
be able to tell them what to do.
> > > Can you name even one country that puts someone in charge because they
got
> > > the most votes?
> >
> > Ireland. England. France. Germany. Italy. Most damn nations in the
western
> > world, funnily.
>
> No. The United Kingdom gets it's leader, depending on who you count, by
> right of birth
The monarchy is only a token gig these dayss, with little executive power
iirc, so they don't count.
>or by being the leader of the party with the most seats in
> parliament. The MP gets the most votes, the leader itself could easily get
> in with less than the enemy.
And how do they get the most seats in the House of Commons, pray tell?
> > > > Q: So what will happen to the Supreme Court when Bush becomes
President.
> > > > A: He will appoint more justices in the mode of Thomas and Scalia to
> > > > ensure
> > > > that the will of the people is less and less respected. Soon lawless
> > > > justices may constitute 6-3 or even 7-2 on the court.
> > >
> > > Good. Gore has been out-conspired.
> >
> > David. Go and read Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail '72, and The
> > Great SHark Hunt (both by Hunter S. Thompson).
>
> No money, no time, no will.
>
> > Come back shorn of all your
> > teenage conspiracy theories, and realise that this is simply wrong. To
> > conspire means doing it in secret- we can see the Republicans fucking
about
> > in broad daylight.
>
> And the Dems.
The Dems aren't trying to supress votes.
> > > > Q: Is there any way to stop this?
> > >
> > > Yes. Take up arms against the government, or, failing that, the
nearest
> > > police station.
> >
> > See above.
>
> What relation have conspiracies to taking up arms against the government?
Quick shutter-upper.
> It was sarcasm. The whole point was that it [PR] is democracy, and
> America - guardian of democracy - isn't, it's a republic.
Democracy is voting for your own government rather than that of an
autocracy. Or something. You vote for it, be it PR or Winner takes all, it's
still democracy.
> > That book gets more relevant by the day. Ironic fact- a typo meant it
didn't
> > get to be called by the name Orwell wanted- 1994.
>
> Call me paranoid, but I think you're talking shit. But I could be wrong.
1984 is getting more and more relevant. Christ, Days of Future Past is
starting to get more and more relevant, which says it all for the world.
The Happy Reaper
> > > > >
> > > > > swiver
> > > >
> > > > Oh, that's alright, it not really important anyway. I mean, who
cares
> if
> > > one
> > > > of the most important men in the world was elected illegally? I'm
> going
> > to
> > > > watch Darma and Greg and eat a massive bag of crisps (No, they are
not
> > > > called fucking 'potato chips').
> > >
> > > My pseudo-girlfriend makes me watch that show. I think I'm in danger
of
> > > getting addicted. And I don't even have the comfort of crisps.
> >
> > Kill her. It sounds harsh but it's the only way. Call it a mercy
> killing...
> > you bi-sexual or something now?
>
> no, straight...
Whoops, mis-read.
The Happy Reaper
> starting to get more and more relevant, which says it all for the world.
1984 is probably more relevant now than any of the books written this year.
pop slut
> > 1984 is getting more and more relevant. Christ, Days of Future Past is
> > starting to get more and more relevant, which says it all for the world.
>
> 1984 is probably more relevant now than any of the books written this
year.
I'm going to wait to read Fear and Loathing in America before I comment on
that.
The Happy Reaper
> > > starting to get more and more relevant, which says it all for the
world.
> >
> > 1984 is probably more relevant now than any of the books written this
> year.
>
> I'm going to wait to read Fear and Loathing in America before I comment on
> that.
I'd wait to read every book written this year before commenting.
pop slut
> > > > 1984 is getting more and more relevant. Christ, Days of Future Past
is
> > > > starting to get more and more relevant, which says it all for the
> world.
> > >
> > > 1984 is probably more relevant now than any of the books written this
> > year.
> >
> > I'm going to wait to read Fear and Loathing in America before I comment
on
> > that.
>
> I'd wait to read every book written this year before commenting.
Yeah, but luckily, I'm not you, eh?
The Happy Reaper
Past
> is
> > > > > starting to get more and more relevant, which says it all for the
> > world.
> > > >
> > > > 1984 is probably more relevant now than any of the books written
this
> > > year.
> > >
> > > I'm going to wait to read Fear and Loathing in America before I
comment
> on
> > > that.
> >
> > I'd wait to read every book written this year before commenting.
>
> Yeah, but luckily, I'm not you, eh?
eh indeed.
Swiver
eman, jsut look at the candidates we had. to me, they are more like a couple
of attention-crazed, media-hungry dicks. this country's government is so
damned stupid.... it doesnt make any sense. Harry Browne should be out
president, he is moer qualified...i would be proud of him.
swiver
The Happy Reaper wrote in message <91mhpj$cd$1...@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk>...
pop slut
Swiver <swi...@cox-internet.com> wrote in message
news:t44he0...@corp.supernews.com...
> i'd hardly call hte president one of the most important men in the
owrld..i
> eman, jsut look at the candidates we had.
Oh. Right. You don't like the candidates, so you just pass them over as
inconsequential to the future governings of an entire nation, ans thewir
subsequent influence on world government.
Well that makes a whole load of sense.
>to me, they are more like a couple
> of attention-crazed, media-hungry dicks. this country's government is so
> damned stupid....
I am not American. Nor is a large amount of the people in here. Your
government, not ours.
>it doesnt make any sense. Harry Browne should be out
> president, he is moer qualified...i would be proud of him.
Oh, well why the hell didn't they nominate him then? If it's going to make
*you* happy, then it's very inconsiderate of them to put in their guys.
And Jesus G. Christ, use a fucking spellcheck.
Swiver
all the decisions, he jsut pretends to be smart. i didnt say it was your
government nor did i say it wasnt mine..i know its mine, and im not very
proud of it....well i guess since you are so fucking perfect that you never
make gramatical errors then everyone in the whole fucking world should use a
spell check, now shouldnt they? your no better than the rest of us....and
neither are those fucking pigs we haev called cops, especialy the one who
pulled my friends and i over...that fucker cost me some hard earned
money...damn it
swiver
pop slut wrote in message ...
>
pop slut
> the president doesnt do all that much, it his parties and advisors who
make
> all the decisions, he jsut pretends to be smart.
I recall it being a first past the post thing yes? The President can
authorise a military strike, last I heard. The President can hold up a bill
being passed...
> i didnt say it was your
> government nor did i say it wasnt mine..i know its mine, and im not very
> proud of it....well i guess since you are so fucking perfect that you
never
> make gramatical errors then everyone in the whole fucking world should use
a
> spell check, now shouldnt they?
What the fuck is your problem? You should use spellcheck 1) as a courtesy,
and 2) when it means your post gets a lot bloody harder to read.
>your no better than the rest of us....
Actually, yes. Yes I am.
>and
> neither are those fucking pigs we haev called cops, especialy the one who
> pulled my friends and i over...that fucker cost me some hard earned
> money...damn it
...
Where the fuck is this coming from? Let it be a lesson to you to not do
whatever it was you were doing and get caught.
The Happy Reaper
>
> Actually, yes. Yes I am.
Apostrophes are so great.
You're good at using them.
pop slut
You're still going by The White List, aren't you? I thought that was defunct
by now... Hrm.
The Happy Reaper
> > >
> > > Actually, yes. Yes I am.
> >
> > Apostrophes are so great.
> >
> > You're good at using them.
>
> You're still going by The White List, aren't you? I thought that was
defunct
> by now... Hrm.
Going by the white list? I had no idea it was still in operation...
pop slut
> > > > >your no better than the rest of us....
> > > >
> > > > Actually, yes. Yes I am.
> > >
> > > Apostrophes are so great.
> > >
> > > You're good at using them.
> >
> > You're still going by The White List, aren't you? I thought that was
> defunct
> > by now... Hrm.
>
> Going by the white list? I had no idea it was still in operation...
I meant in the whole KFing of others bit... The White list hasn't been used
in a while now. Still...
Stephen Morgan
>
> news:91mhpj$cd$1...@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk...
> > > oh geez, thats waaayyyy too long for me to read...sorry
> > >
> > > swiver
> >
> > Oh, that's alright, it not really important anyway. I mean, who cares if
> one
> > of the most important men in the world was elected illegally? I'm going to
> > watch Darma and Greg and eat a massive bag of crisps (No, they are not
> > called fucking 'potato chips').
>
> My pseudo-girlfriend makes me watch that show. I think I'm in danger of
> getting addicted. And I don't even have the comfort of crisps.
You know, it's on every day on the Quaramonte Comedy Channel. And crisps
taste best with chocolate.
Stephen Morgan
>
> Stephen Morgan <ncav...@crosswinds.net> wrote in message
> news:slrn93to5o.3vv...@wildcard.bar...
> > In alt.teens.anti-idiot, pop slut wrote:
> > >
> > > Stephen Morgan <ncav...@crosswinds.net> wrote in message
> > > news:slrn93t5ih.3vv...@wildcard.bar...
> > > > In alt.teens.anti-idiot, pop slut wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > [...] Bush wins, even if Gore got the most votes.
> > > >
> > > > Hopefully.
> > > > Now, what should I say, "It's a Republic, not a Democracy", or "It's
> all
> > > > to do with that Electoral College shit"?
> > >
> > > Bush winning is a frigging disaster,
> >
> > Agreed. So was Blair winning. So would Gore winning have been. At least
> > John Major was pretty safe, the type of boring you can be sure isn't a
> > devil-worshipping tosser.
>
> Gore was a much safer bet than Bush. That's the whole point.
Yes, but really not safe enough, and only safe in smarmy, faux-safe type
of way.
> > > for the reasons I've already pointed
> > > out somewhere, but also because Gore had more votes, yet were ignored in
> > > order to get Bush in..
> >
> > Well, they ignored Bush votes too, and the military votes, and they still
> > haven't figured out how thousands of seemingly normal people from florida
> > managed to fuck up a ballot used without problems in several other places
> > in the country. Nor how those people on TV *knew* they had fucked up.
>
> 1) There were far more uncounted Gore votes than Bush's.
But they didn't count them, so how did they know?
> This is the
> problem- the Republicans invalidated the rights of people who wanted someone
> else.
Good idea on their part.
> 2) The military votes were along the same lines of the Florida votes.
The Dems particularly wanted them gone.
> 3) A lot of the votes discounted were simply because the punch wasn't
> complete and a timy bit of the card was hanging on.
Which is silly.
> > > America has fallen to a new low.
> >
> > They're both devil-worshipping bastards. Gore would definitely be
> > disastrous, while Bush will only probably be disastous. Bush, however,
> > will be far more disastrous.
>
> There is no probably about Bush. At least Gore would maintain the economy.
I don't see any possibility of Bush harming America's economy. Time will
tell. There is a probably.
> > > It's completely
> > > unconstituitional to claim any votes as being illegal just because
> there's a
> > > high chance they're going to go against you, something the Republicans
> knew
> > > would happen if the remaining ballots were counted. They cheated to win.
> >
> > They out-cheated the Democrats.
>
> But how did the Democrats cheat?
Can I get back to you on that?
> > > > > A: Oh no. Six of the justices (two-thirds majority) believed the
> > > > > hand-counts were legal and should be done.
> > > >
> > > > Hand-counts are legal, so are deadlines.
> > >
> > > It says somewhere in this there is a final deadline of somwhere in
> January
> > > for recounts and the such. The deadline was nowhere near reached.
> >
> > Just repeating Virgin Radio News. Perhaps they meant the Florida Supreme
> > Court imposed deadline, if there was one.
>
> Ah yes, what a valuable source...
Well, I was listening to the Chris Evans Breakfast Show and couldn't be
bothered changing the channel.
> > > And even
> > > then, counting all the votes is more important.
> >
> > No, you break one law for a good reason and before you know it there's
> > anarchy. No, that's not a good thing.
>
> I mean if it means delaying things one day so that all the votes are
> counbted, it removes this kind of problem. Counting the votes shouldn't have
> this kind of deadline. They don't have it in Ireland, which means there's
> rarely a need for recount (small scale, yes, but the point is the same).
Not that small. But how does the lack of a deadline stop recounts?
> > > > > Nor can the federal government use the equal
> > > > > protection clause to force states to take measures to stop violence
> > > > > against
> > > > > women.
> > > >
> > > > I would hope not, seeing as women have had their very own VAWA since
> 1994,
> > > > that protects women and ONLY women, even though a lot more violence is
> > > > against men.
> > >
> > > Bullshit. The simple fact is that while therte is violence against men,
> > > there is still more against women.
> >
> > This *is* bullshit. There are over three times as many violent crimes per
> > annum in America against men than against women. Even in domestic
> > situations it's nearly a fifty-fifty split.
>
> And how many of those are men against men?
Most. Most violent crimes are commited *by* men *against* men. The DV
man-on-man violence is about 4.8% of total (about 60% of the amount of
the total lesbians take up). Women initiate just over fifty percent of DV.
> > > But why the hell is a unique situation being created?
> >
> > Well, every situation is unique, you know.
>
> Shut up.
Oh, be nice.
> They are creating a situation that can be used as a benchmark at
> evry single election from here on in. It's a fucking disaster.
True enough.
> > > only for this "special case". The floodgates
> > > are open, and unless a clear majority gets the next president in,
> >
> > Majorities are a bad thing, the Electoral College is the system they are
> > meant to have.
> >
> > > this is
> > > all going to happen again in four years time. It's supposed to be "one
> man,
> > > one vote", not "one man, one crack team of lawyers".
> >
> > Why should it hapen again in four years? Maybe they'll have made their
> > minds up more decisively by then.
>
> If they don't, it's going to be an even longer repeat, because they'll have
> had a chance to plan for this.
Yes. It's the vote counters that count, not the voters.
> > > {snippage of opinionations}
> >
> > Aww...
>
> They're irrelevant.
Yes. So?
> > > > > Q: So who is punished for this behavior?
> > > > > A:
> > > >
> > > > No-one.
> > >
> > > The lot of us. Bush Junior is damn likely to take after Senior in his
> > > trigger happiness,
> >
> > I thought he hated the rest of the world and wanted nothing to do with it.
> > Should be a fun four years.
>
> Nope. The guy is pretty likely to start some wars imo.
What type? Kosovo, Gulf, or Vietnam? I was quite dissappointed when the
troops didn't invade Kosovo. I can barely remember the Gulf.
> > > > Why isn't the law about Welshmen in colchester being thrown out?
> > >
> > > Does that invalidate his right to vote?
> >
> > Not directly, although it could have an adverse effect on his ability to
> > vote.
>
> So what exactly is this law?
Did you know that the Americans think television licenses are a dumb idea?
In Chester, you can only shoot a Welsh person with a bow and arrow inside
the city walls and after midnight.
No, I didn't say colchester, I said Chester.
I prefer Hereford where you may not shoot a Welsh person on Sunday with a
longbow in the Cathedral Close.
> > > > > Q: So, what do we do, have a re-vote? throw out the entire state?
> > > > > countunder a single uniform standard?
> > > > > A: No. We just don't count the votes
> > > >
> > > > That for some reason can't be counted.
> > >
> > > Because the American Legal System is in enough of a tatters to get away
> with
> > > destroying the last vestiges of its democracy.
> >
> > It's not a democracy, it's a republic. God gave the Americans the
> > electoral college to make sure the gits who don't like it get fucked off.
>
> I think it's actually defined as a federal state. Each state is independent
> of the rest in their rulings. Or something. The US Supreme court shouldn't
> be able to tell them what to do.
I think the USSC does whatever the fuck they want, and the state Supreme
Courts get the rest of the decisions.
> > > > Can you name even one country that puts someone in charge because they
> got
> > > > the most votes?
> > >
> > > Ireland. England. France. Germany. Italy. Most damn nations in the
> western
> > > world, funnily.
> >
> > No. The United Kingdom gets it's leader, depending on who you count, by
> > right of birth
>
> The monarchy is only a token gig these dayss, with little executive power
> iirc, so they don't count.
No power I know of. Pity. I like the idea of a dictatorial regime.
> >or by being the leader of the party with the most seats in
> > parliament. The MP gets the most votes, the leader itself could easily get
> > in with less than the enemy.
>
> And how do they get the most seats in the House of Commons, pray tell?
By having the most MPs elected. The MPs need a majority, the party doesn't
need one.
> > > > > Q: So what will happen to the Supreme Court when Bush becomes
> President.
> > > > > A: He will appoint more justices in the mode of Thomas and Scalia to
> > > > > ensure
> > > > > that the will of the people is less and less respected. Soon lawless
> > > > > justices may constitute 6-3 or even 7-2 on the court.
> > > >
> > > > Good. Gore has been out-conspired.
> > >
> > > David. Go and read Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail '72, and The
> > > Great SHark Hunt (both by Hunter S. Thompson).
> >
> > No money, no time, no will.
> >
> > > Come back shorn of all your
> > > teenage conspiracy theories, and realise that this is simply wrong. To
> > > conspire means doing it in secret- we can see the Republicans fucking
> about
> > > in broad daylight.
> >
> > And the Dems.
>
> The Dems aren't trying to supress votes.
Are too. Military ones. Why are you awake at this time?
> > > > > Q: Is there any way to stop this?
> > > >
> > > > Yes. Take up arms against the government, or, failing that, the
> nearest
> > > > police station.
> > >
> > > See above.
> >
> > What relation have conspiracies to taking up arms against the government?
>
> Quick shutter-upper.
Didn't work.
"Just when you think I'll zig, I zag."
"well, when you've finished zigging, sir..."
"That's when I zog."
> > It was sarcasm. The whole point was that it [PR] is democracy, and
> > America - guardian of democracy - isn't, it's a republic.
>
> Democracy is voting for your own government rather than that of an
> autocracy.
A what?
> Or something. You vote for it, be it PR or Winner takes all, it's
> still democracy.
No, a democracy has the person with the most votes winning. In America the
electoral college fucks this up, as the the House of Commons here.
> > > That book gets more relevant by the day. Ironic fact- a typo meant it
> didn't
> > > get to be called by the name Orwell wanted- 1994.
> >
> > Call me paranoid, but I think you're talking shit. But I could be wrong.
>
> 1984 is getting more and more relevant. Christ, Days of Future Past is
> starting to get more and more relevant, which says it all for the world.
Now I don't even understand you. I haven't read it, so I can't.
pop slut
> In alt.teens.anti-idiot, pop slut wrote:
> >
> > The Happy Reaper <happy...@ciahq.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
> > news:91mhpj$cd$1...@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk...
> > > > oh geez, thats waaayyyy too long for me to read...sorry
> > > >
> > > > swiver
> > >
> > > Oh, that's alright, it not really important anyway. I mean, who cares
if
> > one
> > > of the most important men in the world was elected illegally? I'm
going to
> > > watch Darma and Greg and eat a massive bag of crisps (No, they are not
> > > called fucking 'potato chips').
> >
> > My pseudo-girlfriend makes me watch that show. I think I'm in danger of
> > getting addicted. And I don't even have the comfort of crisps.
>
> You know, it's on every day on the Quaramonte Comedy Channel. And crisps
> taste best with chocolate.
Chocoalte and crisps? Ack...
--
b m c ____ will swear for food
icq47130468
______________________________
www.misterridiculous.com/columns/briancaffrey.html
http://wecome.to/intelligentinsanity
www.savantmag.com
pop slut
> > Gore was a much safer bet than Bush. That's the whole point.
>
> Yes, but really not safe enough, and only safe in smarmy, faux-safe type
> of way.
Lesser of two evils. And don't even consider bringing fucking VAWA into it
again.
> > > > for the reasons I've already pointed
> > > > out somewhere, but also because Gore had more votes, yet were
ignored in
> > > > order to get Bush in..
> > >
> > > Well, they ignored Bush votes too, and the military votes, and they
still
> > > haven't figured out how thousands of seemingly normal people from
florida
> > > managed to fuck up a ballot used without problems in several other
places
> > > in the country. Nor how those people on TV *knew* they had fucked up.
> >
> > 1) There were far more uncounted Gore votes than Bush's.
>
> But they didn't count them, so how did they know?
It was a Gore-dominated area that remained uncounted- as close to a cert as
you can get in politics. Regardless of who would have got more votes, they
should stuill have been counted.
> > This is the
> > 3) A lot of the votes discounted were simply because the punch wasn't
> > complete and a timy bit of the card was hanging on.
>
> Which is silly.
And part of the sheer ridiculousnewss of the voting system over there.
> > > > America has fallen to a new low.
> > >
> > > They're both devil-worshipping bastards. Gore would definitely be
> > > disastrous, while Bush will only probably be disastous. Bush, however,
> > > will be far more disastrous.
> >
> > There is no probably about Bush. At least Gore would maintain the
economy.
>
> I don't see any possibility of Bush harming America's economy. Time will
> tell. There is a probably.
Of course there is.
> > But how did the Democrats cheat?
>
> Can I get back to you on that?
I need say no more.
> > > Just repeating Virgin Radio News. Perhaps they meant the Florida
Supreme
> > > Court imposed deadline, if there was one.
> >
> > Ah yes, what a valuable source...
>
> Well, I was listening to the Chris Evans Breakfast Show and couldn't be
> bothered changing the channel.
No excuse. And Evans sucks.
> > > > And even
> > > > then, counting all the votes is more important.
> > >
> > > No, you break one law for a good reason and before you know it there's
> > > anarchy. No, that's not a good thing.
> >
> > I mean if it means delaying things one day so that all the votes are
> > counbted, it removes this kind of problem. Counting the votes shouldn't
have
> > this kind of deadline. They don't have it in Ireland, which means
there's
> > rarely a need for recount (small scale, yes, but the point is the same).
>
> Not that small. But how does the lack of a deadline stop recounts?
We get it right first time- we have a deadline by the way, but it's
reasonable for the size of the country.
> > They are creating a situation that can be used as a benchmark at
> > evry single election from here on in. It's a fucking disaster.
>
> True enough.
>
> > Nope. The guy is pretty likely to start some wars imo.
>
> What type? Kosovo, Gulf, or Vietnam? I was quite dissappointed when the
> troops didn't invade Kosovo. I can barely remember the Gulf.
Bush Snr presided over major viloence, including the Gulf War. Junior is
very much Daddy's Boy.
> > So what exactly is this law?
>
> Did you know that the Americans think television licenses are a dumb idea?
Just another reason to have licences for children.
> In Chester, you can only shoot a Welsh person with a bow and arrow inside
> the city walls and after midnight.
> No, I didn't say colchester, I said Chester.
> I prefer Hereford where you may not shoot a Welsh person on Sunday with a
> longbow in the Cathedral Close.
This is not stuff that happens, so leave it out.
> > > It's not a democracy, it's a republic. God gave the Americans the
> > > electoral college to make sure the gits who don't like it get fucked
off.
> >
> > I think it's actually defined as a federal state. Each state is
independent
> > of the rest in their rulings. Or something. The US Supreme court
shouldn't
> > be able to tell them what to do.
>
> I think the USSC does whatever the fuck they want, and the state Supreme
> Courts get the rest of the decisions.
Certainly seems that way now.
> > Democracy is voting for your own government rather than that of an
> > autocracy.
>
> A what?
An autocracy is any form of government where the ruler has total
(dictatorial, if you like power). I can't remember whether it *has* to be a
monarchy, bu I don't think so.
> > 1984 is getting more and more relevant. Christ, Days of Future Past is
> > starting to get more and more relevant, which says it all for the world.
>
> Now I don't even understand you. I haven't read it, so I can't.
What, 1984 or Days Of Future Past?
--
b m c ____ will swear for food
icq47130468
______________________________
www.misterridiculous.com/columns/briancaffrey.html
http://wecome.to/intelligentinsanity
www.savantmag.com
Stephen Morgan
>
I can tell you, I just have to go and look it up.
> > > > Just repeating Virgin Radio News. Perhaps they meant the Florida
> Supreme
> > > > Court imposed deadline, if there was one.
> > >
> > > Ah yes, what a valuable source...
> >
> > Well, I was listening to the Chris Evans Breakfast Show and couldn't be
> > bothered changing the channel.
>
> No excuse. And Evans sucks.
I was just pointing out why I heard it. And probably.
> > > > > And even
> > > > > then, counting all the votes is more important.
> > > >
> > > > No, you break one law for a good reason and before you know it there's
> > > > anarchy. No, that's not a good thing.
> > >
> > > I mean if it means delaying things one day so that all the votes are
> > > counbted, it removes this kind of problem. Counting the votes shouldn't
> have
> > > this kind of deadline. They don't have it in Ireland, which means
> there's
> > > rarely a need for recount (small scale, yes, but the point is the same).
> >
> > Not that small. But how does the lack of a deadline stop recounts?
>
> We get it right first time- we have a deadline by the way, but it's
> reasonable for the size of the country.
You have a fucking tiny country.
> > > They are creating a situation that can be used as a benchmark at
> > > evry single election from here on in. It's a fucking disaster.
> >
> > True enough.
> >
> > > Nope. The guy is pretty likely to start some wars imo.
> >
> > What type? Kosovo, Gulf, or Vietnam? I was quite dissappointed when the
> > troops didn't invade Kosovo. I can barely remember the Gulf.
>
> Bush Snr presided over major viloence, including the Gulf War. Junior is
> very much Daddy's Boy.
So only Gulf-type war?
> > In Chester, you can only shoot a Welsh person with a bow and arrow inside
> > the city walls and after midnight.
> > No, I didn't say colchester, I said Chester.
> > I prefer Hereford where you may not shoot a Welsh person on Sunday with a
> > longbow in the Cathedral Close.
>
> This is not stuff that happens, so leave it out.
That's the point.
> > > 1984 is getting more and more relevant. Christ, Days of Future Past is
> > > starting to get more and more relevant, which says it all for the world.
> >
> > Now I don't even understand you. I haven't read it, so I can't.
>
> What, 1984 or Days Of Future Past?
Second one.
--
"[...]a most curious arched vault or crypt, supported by a row of
pillars in the middle, and having loops and embrasures towards the river,
in which were planted cannons in the civil wars. At one end are some
remains of the entrance to a subterranean passage, said to have gone a
great way under ground."
-- White's Directory of Nottinghamshire 1853, on the crypt beneath the
Castle at Newark-on-Trent.
Stephen Morgan
>
> Stephen Morgan <ncav...@crosswinds.net> wrote in message
> news:slrn93tq5r.3vv...@wildcard.bar...
> > In alt.teens.anti-idiot, pop slut wrote:
> > >
> > > The Happy Reaper <happy...@ciahq.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
> > > news:91mhpj$cd$1...@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk...
> > > > > oh geez, thats waaayyyy too long for me to read...sorry
> > > > >
> > > > > swiver
> > > >
> > > > Oh, that's alright, it not really important anyway. I mean, who cares
> if
> > > one
> > > > of the most important men in the world was elected illegally? I'm
> going to
> > > > watch Darma and Greg and eat a massive bag of crisps (No, they are not
> > > > called fucking 'potato chips').
> > >
> > > My pseudo-girlfriend makes me watch that show. I think I'm in danger of
> > > getting addicted. And I don't even have the comfort of crisps.
> >
> > You know, it's on every day on the Quaramonte Comedy Channel. And crisps
> > taste best with chocolate.
>
> Chocoalte and crisps? Ack...
Only salt&vinegar crisps. I'm not perverted.
pop slut
> In alt.teens.anti-idiot, pop slut wrote:
> > We get it right first time- we have a deadline by the way, but it's
> > reasonable for the size of the country.
>
> You have a fucking tiny country.
The size of the country is irrelevant. The point is we were a developing
nation until recently. America was supposedly far beyond us, and even we
have a superior voting system.
> > > > They are creating a situation that can be used as a benchmark at
> > > > evry single election from here on in. It's a fucking disaster.
> > >
> > > True enough.
> > >
> > > > Nope. The guy is pretty likely to start some wars imo.
> > >
> > > What type? Kosovo, Gulf, or Vietnam? I was quite dissappointed when
the
> > > troops didn't invade Kosovo. I can barely remember the Gulf.
> >
> > Bush Snr presided over major viloence, including the Gulf War. Junior is
> > very much Daddy's Boy.
>
> So only Gulf-type war?
War is war, people die regardless. Differentiating them is kind of stupid.
> > > In Chester, you can only shoot a Welsh person with a bow and arrow
inside
> > > the city walls and after midnight.
> > > No, I didn't say colchester, I said Chester.
> > > I prefer Hereford where you may not shoot a Welsh person on Sunday
with a
> > > longbow in the Cathedral Close.
> >
> > This is not stuff that happens, so leave it out.
>
> That's the point.
>
> > > > 1984 is getting more and more relevant. Christ, Days of Future Past
is
> > > > starting to get more and more relevant, which says it all for the
world.
> > >
> > > Now I don't even understand you. I haven't read it, so I can't.
> >
> > What, 1984 or Days Of Future Past?
>
> Second one.
It was a story about 20 years ago in X-Men which presated The Terminator,
and actually looks as though Cameron ripped it off something rotten- Robots
dominating a dystopian future, people herded into camps, mutants on the run,
the X-men get killed in the end, but seeing as how it's in the fiture,
that's okay. Very good story, though. Shame the books don't read like that
now.
jasondp
pop slut <brian...@esatclear.ie> wrote in message
news:ARx46.1062$h06....@news.iol.ie...
Sorry to but in but can we stop with the killing of the welsh!
pop slut
jasondp <jas...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:tiA46.32906$Yy.7...@news2-win.server.ntlworld.com...
> Sorry to but in but can we stop with the killing of the welsh!
"We have been softened for decades. The continual dumbing down of our
educational system and the increasing banality of popular culture are just
two trends we can trace to a sick source.
That Source is Welsh people."
--Transmetropolitan #41
jasondp
f*** ups.
God made the world in perfect balance with equal good, and equal bad.
For man he mad woman for north he made south and so on.
So one day god was feeling extra good, and so he thought to himself I will
make for the most precious people on the planet, the best country on earth.
And in that place I will put all the greatest people with the greatest
talents. I will place brilliant SCENERY, excellent fresh water and the
mother of all animals sheep after all he knew what was to come (BSE) the
place in question was Wales. When god had finished creating the world ,
Michel, his trusty side kick, said, wait a minute, if this is a balanced
world, how come that place it so beautiful, and the people there are so
good-looking, and they are all so clever, where's the balance?
God replied, look at the tossers next to them!!!
Happy New Year
Jason
pop slut <brian...@esatclear.ie> wrote in message
news:nbL46.1120$h06....@news.iol.ie...
pop slut
> Yeah that's real nice now stop blaming the decent people for the English
> f*** ups.
>
> God made the world in perfect balance with equal good, and equal bad.
> For man he mad woman for north he made south and so on.
> So one day god was feeling extra good, and so he thought to himself I will
> make for the most precious people on the planet, the best country on
earth.
> And in that place I will put all the greatest people with the greatest
> talents. I will place brilliant SCENERY, excellent fresh water and the
> mother of all animals sheep after all he knew what was to come (BSE) the
> place in question was Wales. When god had finished creating the world ,
> Michel, his trusty side kick, said, wait a minute, if this is a balanced
> world, how come that place it so beautiful, and the people there are so
> good-looking, and they are all so clever, where's the balance?
> God replied, look at the tossers next to them!!!
1) You missed the point.
2) That (bloody old) joke was originally Ireland as the Great Country.
Stephen Morgan
>
> news:tiA46.32906$Yy.7...@news2-win.server.ntlworld.com...
> > Sorry to but in but can we stop with the killing of the welsh!
>
> "We have been softened for decades. The continual dumbing down of our
> educational system and the increasing banality of popular culture are just
> two trends we can trace to a sick source.
>
> That Source is Welsh people."
>
> --Transmetropolitan #41
Being half-Welsh, I am half in on the World-Wide Welsh Conspiracy for
World Domination. We're working with the Jews and the Manx. Only kill the
Manx.
--
"When the sun goes down, all the weirdos turn crazy." - Homer Simpson
jasondp
would be delighted, to hear what u actually meant by
"We have been softened for decades. The continual dumbing down of our
educational system and the increasing banality of popular culture are just
two trends we can trace to a sick source.
That Source is Welsh people."
--Transmetropolitan #41
Also it doesn't actually matter which country is put as the great
country, only that England will never, sadly make the top spot.
pop slut <brian...@esatclear.ie> wrote in message
news:1_O46.1178$h06....@news.iol.ie...
pop slut
"jasondp" <jas...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> Well if you would be kind enough to tell me the point of the
quote I
> would be delighted, to hear what u actually meant by
Humour. Satire. Christ, is that so hard to grasp?
For those who've joined us late, the quote...
> "We have been softened for decades. The continual dumbing down of our
> educational system and the increasing banality of popular culture are
just
> two trends we can trace to a sick source.
>
> That Source is Welsh people."
>
> --Transmetropolitan #41
--
b m c ____ will swear for food
icq47130468
______________________________
www.misterridiculous.com/columns
www.savantmag.com
www.tbns.net/atii
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
jasondp
pop slut <they_call...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:932fbc$n5o$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <LN%46.51312$ca6.8...@news6-win.server.ntlworld.com>,
> "jasondp" <jas...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> > Well if you would be kind enough to tell me the point of the
> quote I
> > would be delighted, to hear what u actually meant by
>
> Humour. Satire. Christ, is that so hard to grasp?
>
It is when it comes from someone like you.
You really should make yourself more clear next time
sorry Dawson
pop slut
>
>
> pop slut <they_call...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> news:932fbc$n5o$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > In article <LN%46.51312$ca6.8...@news6-win.server.ntlworld.com>,
> > "jasondp" <jas...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> > > Well if you would be kind enough to tell me the point of the
> > quote I
> > > would be delighted, to hear what u actually meant by
> >
> > Humour. Satire. Christ, is that so hard to grasp?
> >
>
> It is when it comes from someone like you.
Or when your terminally Welsh brain can't handle it.
> You really should make yourself more clear next time
> sorry Dawson
To be Frank (for a change), Fuck Off.
--
b m c ____ will swear for food
icq47130468
______________________________
www.misterridiculous.com/columns/briancaffrey.html
http://wecome.to/intelligentinsanity
www.savantmag.com
jasondp
>
> jasondp <jas...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
> news:uU356.52298$ca6.8...@news6-win.server.ntlworld.com...
> >
> >
> > pop slut <they_call...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> > news:932fbc$n5o$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > > In article <LN%46.51312$ca6.8...@news6-win.server.ntlworld.com>,
> > > "jasondp" <jas...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> > > > Well if you would be kind enough to tell me the point of the
> > > quote I
> > > > would be delighted, to hear what u actually meant by
> > >
> > > Humour. Satire. Christ, is that so hard to grasp?
> > >
> >
> > It is when it comes from someone like you.
>
> Or when your terminally Welsh brain can't handle it.
Its hardly terminal having a welsh Brain unlike the damn English we
don't find it that amusing to have huge riots after football matches or
riots in Large food chains over capitalism. And we don't worship at the
feet of some stuck up German family just because they say they're the ones
with the power. Royalty sucks but more than that The English royal family
has well and truly got its head stuck up its own arse much like the rest of
the population of your messed up country. They don't give a hoot about
public opinion, and if they do they are really not that bright (there is a
large opposition to hunting of all kinds so lets send out the children to
shoot at the birds) in all honesty the only three things that would suffer
from a country without a royal family would be the English, the Americans
(you have got to admit it these guys get way too fired up about the British
royal family, and the tourism industry.
>
> > You really should make yourself more clear next time
> > sorry Dawson
>
> To be Frank (for a change), Fuck Off.
Careful we are taking over the world the damn English (mind you after
looking at your column on the mrridi...com I get the feeling you may not be
English and there fore my rant at you in which I take it for granted that
you were an English person may be totally wrong if it is I am sorry good
column by the way) film students will be the first to be punished
lin
He is Irish. learn to use punctuation!.:,
shut up.
Stephen Morgan
can't use brackets. For this he shall die.
Stephen Morgan
Learn to snip. Fuck off.
jasondp
> You may have noticed that this arsehole is just talking shit now. And he
> can't use brackets. For this he shall die.
To be honest I really doubt that that will happen.
Now get over your self and shut the hell up (!)
Oh by the way Happy New Year!
The Happy Reaper
> don't find it that amusing to have huge riots after football matches
We may not beat them on the pitch but we sure as hell beat them off it.
--
"I could only make you cry with these words" - Belle and Sebastian
The Happy Reaper
jasondp
> > Its hardly terminal having a welsh Brain unlike the damn English we
> > don't find it that amusing to have huge riots after football matches
>
> We may not beat them on the pitch but we sure as hell beat them off it.
Well I supose beating them some where is better than not at all.
The Happy Reaper
we
> > > don't find it that amusing to have huge riots after football matches
> >
> > We may not beat them on the pitch but we sure as hell beat them off it.
>
> Well I supose beating them some where is better than not at all.
My point exactly.
jasondp
> > > > Its hardly terminal having a welsh Brain unlike the damn English
> we
> > > > don't find it that amusing to have huge riots after football matches
> > >
> > > We may not beat them on the pitch but we sure as hell beat them off
it.
> >
> > Well I supose beating them some where is better than not at all.
>
> My point exactly.
Fair enough then