OT Prediction
Samuel Vriezen
Kerry 52%
Bush 46%
Nader 2%
--
samuel
concerten.free.fr
http://composers21.com/compdocs/vriezens.htm
Paul Heslop
I do hope so
--
Paul (I see the bright and hollow sky)
------------------------------------------------------
Stop and Look
http://www.geocities.com/dreamst8me/
michael
"Samuel Vriezen" <sqv.do.not.spam@xs4all> wrote in message
news:418671e5$0$21106$e4fe...@news.xs4all.nl...
> Just for fun:
>
> Kerry 52%
> Bush 46%
> Nader 2%
Kerry 53%
Josh 28%
Benders 15% ( seasoning, 85% animal fat)
Shakespeare 15%
Mr Lysaght 4%
Peter T. Daniels
>
> Just for fun:
>
> Kerry 52%
> Bush 46%
> Nader 2%
Exit polls from the early-voters put Nader at half that.
--
Peter T. Daniels gram...@att.net
Dale
I think I'm going going to pull down at least .01% from certain female
voters in Oklahoma.
dmh
Dale
Samuel Vriezen wrote:
> Just for fun:
>
> Kerry 52%
> Bush 46%
> Nader 2%
>
Here's a fun fact: last night EVEN Fox "News" suggested that Kerry might
win the electoral vote, but lose the popular vote. At this point, I
think they're overestimating Bush's popularity, but still that seems odd
for them.
dmh
Samuel Vriezen
A trick, obviously. Fox wants to urge its audience to go vote and so has
to give extra urgency signals, but at the same time it must show that
the hearts of the people are with Bush.
Dale
Samuel Vriezen wrote:
> Dale wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Samuel Vriezen wrote:
>>
>>> Just for fun:
>>>
>>> Kerry 52%
>>> Bush 46%
>>> Nader 2%
>>>
>>
>> Here's a fun fact: last night EVEN Fox "News" suggested that Kerry
>> might win the electoral vote, but lose the popular vote. At this
>> point, I think they're overestimating Bush's popularity, but still
>> that seems odd for them.
>>
>> dmh
>>
>
> A trick, obviously. Fox wants to urge its audience to go vote and so has
> to give extra urgency signals, but at the same time it must show that
> the hearts of the people are with Bush.
I thought of that, but felt it was too smart for them. Guess not...
dmh
>
Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS
> Samuel Vriezen wrote:
>
>>Just for fun:
>>
>>Kerry 52%
>>Bush 46%
>>Nader 2%
>
>
> Exit polls from the early-voters put Nader at half that.
What's the deal with all the early voting anyway? I've never heard of
it spoken of before this election.
Steve
--
Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS
http://www.dentaltwins.com
Brooklyn, NY
718-258-5001
Allen
Samuel Vriezen wrote:
> Just for fun:
>
> Kerry 52%
> Bush 46%
> Nader 2%
>
Hope so with all my life (literally) but what will count is:
Supreme Court:
Bush 55.5%
Kerry 44.5%
Sound familiar?
Allen
EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque)
Samuel Vriezen wrote:
> Just for fun:
>
> Kerry 52%
Just so that 52% is distributed so he gets the required
number of electoral votes! (The "close call" might still
leave some of us doubting the intelligence of the average
American, but at least we'd have averted the disaster of
another four years of the village idiot.)
> Bush 46%
> Nader 2%
>
Richard Loeb
voter Richard
"EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque)" <evg...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:cm693...@news2.newsguy.com...
EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque)
Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS wrote:
> Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>
>> Samuel Vriezen wrote:
>>
>>> Just for fun:
>>>
>>> Kerry 52%
>>> Bush 46%
>>> Nader 2%
>>
>>
>>
>> Exit polls from the early-voters put Nader at half that.
>
>
>
> What's the deal with all the early voting anyway? I've never heard
> of it spoken of before this election.
I think it has to do with electronic voting. (Which is an
option in in some states, but this is the first year it has
been available, SFAIK.)
EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque)
Dale wrote:
Just so Kerry gets the requisite electoral votes! (Although
Bush running so close in the polls certainly raises doubts
as to the "average" intelligence among our citizens.)
>
> dmh
>
Peter T. Daniels
The Chief didn't show up for work today. That makes it 50% - 50%, and a
tie doesn't overturn.
Peter T. Daniels
Wouldn't that be ironic? And they couldn't dare challenge the result (as
they apparently were prepared to do if it had happened in 00).
But I don't see it happening.
Peter T. Daniels
It has nothing to do with electronic voting. In 00 it was available in
20 states; now it's available in 26 states.
Josh Hill
<sqv.do.not.spam@xs4all> wrote:
>Just for fun:
>
>Kerry 52%
>Bush 46%
>Nader 2%
Gawd, one can only hope! My prediction:
Kerry: 0%
Bush: 0%
Nader: 0%
Supreme Court: 100%
--
Josh
"And for that matter, I believe the forces behind Hitler were
largely catholic - The German Mythology was more a mask than
anything else. No one serious about a superior Aryan race would match
up with Italians. The story just doesn't compute on
that level." - Martijn Benders
Josh Hill
>
>
>Samuel Vriezen wrote:
>> Just for fun:
>>
>> Kerry 52%
>> Bush 46%
>> Nader 2%
>>
>
>Here's a fun fact: last night EVEN Fox "News" suggested that Kerry might
>win the electoral vote, but lose the popular vote.
The irony would be delicious.
Allen
He's probably already filed his opinion.
Allen
Samuel Vriezen
> Nothing will stop me from doubting the intelligence of the average American
> voter Richard
I have a bigger problem with the non-voter, though the worst problem of
all may be things such as this system with districts and with electoral
colleges etc.
Daniel Kolle
>Just for fun:
>
>Kerry 52%
>Bush 46%
>Nader 2%
Kerry wins White House. Conservatives maintain majority in the
Congress and Senate. Kerry accomplishes little, although spending
plummets. A one-term president.
--
-Daniel "Mr. Brevity" Kolle; 16 A.A. #2035
Koji Kondo, Yo-Yo Ma, Gustav Mahler, Krzysztof Penderecki, and Geirr Tveitt are my Gods.
Head of EAC Denial Department and Madly Insane Scientist.
jonathan
Early voting was available last time in Florida, only a fourth as many
voted early last time. This election should have the biggest turnout
since '60.
Which will write the epitaph for this administration.
>
jonathan
"Samuel Vriezen" <sqv.do.not.spam@xs4all> wrote in message
> Dale wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > Samuel Vriezen wrote:
> >
> >> Just for fun:
> >>
> >> Kerry 52%
> >> Bush 46%
> >> Nader 2%
> >>
> >
> > Here's a fun fact: last night EVEN Fox "News" suggested that Kerry might
> > win the electoral vote, but lose the popular vote. At this point, I
> > think they're overestimating Bush's popularity, but still that seems odd
> > for them.
> >
> > dmh
> >
>
> A trick, obviously. Fox wants to urge its audience to go vote and so has
> to give extra urgency signals, but at the same time it must show that
> the hearts of the people are with Bush.
All the polls are showing a Kerry surge at the end. And that scenario
is possible since Bush should win a number of states by very large
margins....wasted votes. In a very close electoral vote Bush should
get more votes.
Right now, as I see it, Kerry is doing about 2% better than Gore
and without Nader as a problem. Add to that a bump from the
huge turnout and Kerry should win this handily.
Dale
You can hope that Rehnquist dies or goes into a coma by then...might help...
dmh
Dale
Polls don't mean much. You must realize that these things almost always
become "hourse races" just before the election, and there's good reaason
for it: many of the parties involved have a stake in it seeming as close
as possible. The politicians need to keep their "monkeys" in a line,
frenetic and anxious, so they'll run over their children to get to the
polls. The pollsters themselves need to keep it close, so they won't be
wrong, becuae it's bad for business. The media likes it, because it
sells papers and keeps the seats warm.
dmh
Dale
Samuel Vriezen wrote:
> Richard Loeb wrote:
>
>> Nothing will stop me from doubting the intelligence of the average
>> American voter Richard
>
>
> I have a bigger problem with the non-voter, though the worst problem of
> all may be things such as this system with districts and with electoral
> colleges etc.
>
I must say that I understand completely the non-voter: a political
system that offers up so little is difficult to be involved in.
As for the electoral college system: I think it is fine in theory, but
needs to be adjusted (and monitored) all up and down the line for
accessibility. And - of course - we need to shorten the campaign season
to a reasonable 6 months or so, provide free air time, and have real
debates with all eligible candidates, no matter how much the DNC whines.
dmh
Peter T. Daniels
>
> On Mon, 01 Nov 2004 18:24:19 +0100, Samuel Vriezen
> <sqv.do.not.spam@xs4all> thought hard and said:
>
> >Just for fun:
> >
> >Kerry 52%
> >Bush 46%
> >Nader 2%
>
> Kerry wins White House. Conservatives maintain majority in the
> Congress and Senate. Kerry accomplishes little, although spending
> plummets. A one-term president.
You haven't been following the Senate races, have you.
Allen
Then I think that we would all be surprised to find that suddenly
Rehnquist had issued an opinion before he died that early voting is
permissible in SC decisions. Don't expect the five from hell to play by
any known rules.
Allen
Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS
Maybe he hasn't been, but I hear his prediction is pretty much what
Wall Street wants--"gridlock".
Steve
--
Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS
jeffc
"Peter T. Daniels" <gram...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:418786...@worldnet.att.net...
The Senate races will be close, but nothing suggests he's wrong that Republicans
(ahem, not "conservatives") maintain Senate majority. If Kerry accomplished
nothing, that would be better than the damage done by the current president.
Besides, a spending gridlock would probably be a good thing. Worked for
Clinton.
Robert Briggs
> Polls don't mean much. You must realize that these things almost always
> become "hourse races" just before the election, and there's good reaason
> for it: many of the parties involved have a stake in it seeming as close
> as possible. The politicians need to keep their "monkeys" in a line,
> frenetic and anxious, so they'll run over their children to get to the
> polls. The pollsters themselves need to keep it close, so they won't be
> wrong, becuae it's bad for business. The media likes it, because it
> sells papers and keeps the seats warm.
O cynice inveterate.
Peter T. Daniels
Dems defeat R incumbents in Alaska (Murkowski, appointed by her daddy)
and Kentucky (Bunning, a former baseball player who seems seriously
demented); which of the 14(!) open seats do you expect to switch from D
to R?
Samuel Vriezen
> On Mon, 01 Nov 2004 18:24:19 +0100, Samuel Vriezen
> <sqv.do.not.spam@xs4all> thought hard and said:
>
>
>>Just for fun:
>>
>>Kerry 52%
>>Bush 46%
>>Nader 2%
>
>
> Kerry wins White House. Conservatives maintain majority in the
> Congress and Senate. Kerry accomplishes little, although spending
> plummets. A one-term president.
Possibly, but the more important thing is whether Americans are going to
let Bush get away with what he has been doing or not.
Samuel Vriezen
>
>
> Samuel Vriezen wrote:
>
>> Richard Loeb wrote:
>>
>>> Nothing will stop me from doubting the intelligence of the average
>>> American voter Richard
>>
>>
>>
>> I have a bigger problem with the non-voter, though the worst problem
>> of all may be things such as this system with districts and with
>> electoral colleges etc.
>>
>
> I must say that I understand completely the non-voter: a political
> system that offers up so little is difficult to be involved in.
I advise blanco votes or protest candidates (Nader?) in such a case.
Otherwise it won't be understood as protest.
> As for the electoral college system: I think it is fine in theory, but
> needs to be adjusted (and monitored) all up and down the line for
> accessibility. And - of course - we need to shorten the campaign season
> to a reasonable 6 months or so, provide free air time, and have real
> debates with all eligible candidates, no matter how much the DNC whines.
--
samuel
concerten.free.fr
http://composers21.com/compdocs/vriezens.htm
M.H.Benders
Samuel Vriezen wrote:
>> I must say that I understand completely the non-voter: a political
>> system that offers up so little is difficult to be involved in.
>
> I advise blanco votes or protest candidates (Nader?) in such a case.
> Otherwise it won't be understood as protest.
I advise voting for either Stockhausen or, better yet, Bobby Fischer!
If only people would be realistic enough to chose for genius.
M.H.Benders
Samuel Vriezen
>
>
> Samuel Vriezen wrote:
>
>>> I must say that I understand completely the non-voter: a political
>>> system that offers up so little is difficult to be involved in.
>>
>>
>> I advise blanco votes or protest candidates (Nader?) in such a case.
>> Otherwise it won't be understood as protest.
>
>
> I advise voting for either Stockhausen or, better yet, Bobby Fischer!
ROFL
> If only people would be realistic enough to chose for genius.
>
> M.H.Benders
>
jeffc
"Samuel Vriezen" <sqv.do.not.spam@xs4all> wrote in message
> >
> >
> > Kerry wins White House. Conservatives maintain majority in the
> > Congress and Senate. Kerry accomplishes little, although spending
> > plummets. A one-term president.
>
> Possibly, but the more important thing is whether Americans are going to
> let Bush get away with what he has been doing or not.
I'd wager real money that they won't, but it saddens me to think it's a close
bet.
jeffc
> > > >
> > > > Kerry wins White House. Conservatives maintain majority in the
> > > > Congress and Senate. Kerry accomplishes little, although spending
> > > > plummets. A one-term president.
> > >
> > > You haven't been following the Senate races, have you.
> >
> > The Senate races will be close, but nothing suggests he's wrong that
Republicans
> > (ahem, not "conservatives") maintain Senate majority. If Kerry accomplished
> > nothing, that would be better than the damage done by the current president.
> > Besides, a spending gridlock would probably be a good thing. Worked for
> > Clinton.
>
> Dems defeat R incumbents in Alaska (Murkowski, appointed by her daddy)
> and Kentucky (Bunning, a former baseball player who seems seriously
> demented); which of the 14(!) open seats do you expect to switch from D
> to R?
I have to admit I'm not following you. Are you saying Republicans maintain a
majority, or don't?
b s
"M.H.Benders" <m.be...@spamchello.nl> wrote in message
news:4187F1A3...@spamchello.nl...
They care too much for image & not enough for substance. It would be cool
to have a musician win, but I don't think Stockhausen would be the one I'd
chose.
M.H.Benders
Samuel Vriezen wrote:
>> I advise voting for either Stockhausen or, better yet, Bobby Fischer!
>
> ROFL
America had its one chance to improve the democratic concept long ago:
drive-in voting.
Think about it.
They could have actually done something that would improve the whole
concept of voting.
And did they do so? No. Instead they just fucked up the ballots.
They should listen to someone like Benders more often.
M.H.Benders
Peter T. Daniels
They definitely lose 2 incumbents. If none of the 14 change from D to R,
the D's win. Which of the 14 do you expect to change from D to R?
Josh Hill
wrote:
You're talking to Benders here: it's a fair bet his sole exposure to
Stockhausen is having seen his name in a post yesterday.
Dale
It's really not cynicism (although - despite it's modern patina -
there's nothing wrong with being cynical): a lot of supposedly
respectable commentators have said much the same thing, and - really -
it doesn't take a big intellect to figure out that it only stands to reason.
dmh
Dale
Samuel Vriezen wrote:
> Dale wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Samuel Vriezen wrote:
>>
>>> Richard Loeb wrote:
>>>
>>>> Nothing will stop me from doubting the intelligence of the average
>>>> American voter Richard
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I have a bigger problem with the non-voter, though the worst problem
>>> of all may be things such as this system with districts and with
>>> electoral colleges etc.
>>>
>>
>> I must say that I understand completely the non-voter: a political
>> system that offers up so little is difficult to be involved in.
>
>
> I advise blanco votes or protest candidates (Nader?) in such a case.
> Otherwise it won't be understood as protest.
Certainly: but this is a failing of the American election system also:
in many European countries, a "none of the above" slot is provided for
just such an event. Why not here?
dmh
Dale
Bobby's a great chess-player, but other than that, he can barely do
anything except turn on a portable radio. This puts him two abilities
above Bush of course, but I guess I'd rather vote for Bob Dylan.
dmh
Dale
The closeness is due in large part to the anxiety they purposefully
induced, but also to Kerry's rather weak campaign, which - until Clinton
loaded his staff with his old people - was even afraid to mention the
war. Given a stronger start, I think the race wouldn't be so tight right
now.
dmh
EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque)
Richard Loeb wrote:
> Nothing will stop me from doubting the intelligence of the average American
> voter Richard
Especially the way the counts seem to be going this evening
(November 2)! If we're stuck with Bush for another four
years, we may as well bid farewell to our country as we knew
it (and the progress of the last forty years).
>
>
> "EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque)" <evg...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:cm693...@news2.newsguy.com...
>
>>
>>Samuel Vriezen wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Just for fun:
>>>
>>>Kerry 52%
>>
>>Just so that 52% is distributed so he gets the required number of
>>electoral votes! (The "close call" might still leave some of us doubting
>>the intelligence of the average American, but at least we'd have averted
>>the disaster of another four years of the village idiot.)
>>
>>
>>>Bush 46%
>>>Nader 2%
>>>
>>
>
>
Alex
>
>
> Richard Loeb wrote:
>
>> Nothing will stop me from doubting the intelligence of the average
>> American voter Richard
>
>
> Especially the way the counts seem to be going this evening (November
> 2)! If we're stuck with Bush for another four years, we may as well bid
> farewell to our country as we knew it (and the progress of the last
> forty years).
Yeah, it's 6:30am in the UK and I just woke up and although it's not
over yet I have to say it looks like The Idiot is going to win again! I
don't understand it! What exactly does he have to do to get voted out?
EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque)
Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque) wrote:
>>I think it has to do with electronic voting. (Which is an
>>option in in some states, but this is the first year it has
>>been available, SFAIK.)
>
>
> It has nothing to do with electronic voting. In 00 it was available in
> 20 states; now it's available in 26 states.
And in California it was available only via electronic
voting this year, and I'd never heard of it being offered
before. Don't always be so sure you know everything, Peter
- you don't. At least when I'm not sure of something I make
it clear that "I think" (whatever) is true. You flatly
contradict people whether you know what you're talking about
or not.
EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque)
jonathan wrote:
> Early voting was available last time in Florida, only a fourth as many
> voted early last time. This election should have the biggest turnout
> since '60.
>
> Which will write the epitaph for this administration.
Only that's not the way it seems to be going, at this point
(10 PM PST)
>
>
>
>
>
Dale
But he's right: for the most part it has nothing to do with electronic
voting, but is just an option offered to voters this year. Not one I
particularly welcome, but there you are...
dmh
Dale
He strikes me as the perfect president for an America on the skids.
Kerry would have just put a smiley face on the international disaster
the U.S. is shaping up to be. This way, he can just keep on smirking his
way through the decline.
dmh
Samuel Vriezen
> Just for fun:
>
> Kerry 52%
> Bush 46%
> Nader 2%
>
Got that wrong it seems!
Schneidegger
"Samuel Vriezen" <sqv.do.not.spam@xs4all> schreef in bericht
news:418671e5$0$21106$e4fe...@news.xs4all.nl...
> Just for fun:
>
> Kerry 52%
> Bush 46%
> Nader 2%
Als futuroloog ben je een nul.
Al[s componist ook.
En verder is het lead for old iron.
En ga nou Benders maar weer pijpen.
Schneidegger
> >
> > Kerry 52%
> > Bush 46%
> > Nader 2%
> >
>
> Got that wrong it seems!
En je kent geen Engels ook ijdele zak.
Got it wrong obviously is de uitdrukking. Maar je hebt het natuurlijk te
druk met bomen planten in verwoest Palestijns gebied.
Josh Hill
>EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque) wrote:
>Yeah, it's 6:30am in the UK and I just woke up and although it's not
>over yet I have to say it looks like The Idiot is going to win again! I
>don't understand it! What exactly does he have to do to get voted out?
Amazing, isn't it? I can't think of one thing he hasn't botched: he
didn't even give a very good reading of The Pet Goat.
Of course, Clinton would be running for his fourth term if it hadn't
been for term limits, a profoundly stupid idea which, mathematically,
works against better-than-average office holders, Gore would have won
not just the popular but the electoral vote in the last election had
the votes been properly counted or Nader not been in the race, and
Bush would be history today if it hadn't been for the war on terror or
if Kerry had been a more compelling campaigner. It's really a pretty
bad showing for Bush under the circumstances, which robbed the
Democrats of their advantage on domestic issues and the War in Iraq.
So to some degree, I think the Democrats have just lucked out.
On the other hand, the Republicans now have a stranglehold on the
evangelical vote on the basis of silly-season "moral issues" like
abortion, gay marriage, and opposition to separation of Church and
state. And I don't see any way for the Democrats to overcome that
structural disadvantage without dirtying themselves even more than
they already have.
OTOH, had Kerry been elected, he would have been stuck with a
lose-lose proposition -- keep fighting Bush's botched war in Iraq and
get blamed for the bad results, or pull out and be blamed for losing
it. I wouldn't wish four more years of Bush on the country for
political advantage, but, from a long-term perspective, this is money
in the bank.
Peter T. Daniels
>
> Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>
> > EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque) wrote:
>
> >>I think it has to do with electronic voting. (Which is an
> >>option in in some states, but this is the first year it has
> >>been available, SFAIK.)
> >
> >
> > It has nothing to do with electronic voting. In 00 it was available in
> > 20 states; now it's available in 26 states.
>
> And in California it was available only via electronic
> voting this year, and I'd never heard of it being offered
> before.
California is exactly one state.
It also isn't used in New York, New Jersey, or Illinois, but that
doesn't mean I haven't heard of it before.
> Don't always be so sure you know everything, Peter
> - you don't. At least when I'm not sure of something I make
> it clear that "I think" (whatever) is true. You flatly
> contradict people whether you know what you're talking about
> or not.
So you're saying that (a) in California only those counties that use
electronic voting permit early voting (which would be a violation of
Bush v. Gore, if nothing else), and therefore (b) in other states, it's
available only where electronic voting is used?
Talk about leaping to conclusions!
Look just up the coast at Oregon. All voting is _by mail_, _before_
election day. All early, nothing electronic.
An asinine way to do it, but they do it.
Peter T. Daniels
(doesn't matter)
>
> Peter T. Daniels wrote:
But you claimed you plonked me.
You have the integrity of a Republican.
Peter T. Daniels
Have an honest staff instead of Rove, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, etc.
M.H.Benders
>>Yeah, it's 6:30am in the UK and I just woke up and although it's not
>>over yet I have to say it looks like The Idiot is going to win again! I
>>don't understand it! What exactly does he have to do to get voted out?
>
> Amazing, isn't it?
Not for anyone with a braincel or two. It's bleedingly obvious that
you don't let a big sponsor of George Bush provide the voting boot
technology.
Do you have any idea how easy it is to twitch those? And does anyone
have any doubt whatosever that the guys who caused Abu Graib, Guantanamo
and Iraq would have problems twitching a few voting boots?
It's so naieve it hurts. Not that it matters to me that Bush won - I
think you guys deserve him and I applaud the bankruptcy of the States
which is now inevitable. But I don't want to hear you whine about
election results if the whole thing is a scam in the first place.
M.H.Benders
Nightingale
>
>
> Richard Loeb wrote:
>
>> Nothing will stop me from doubting the intelligence of the average
>> American voter Richard
>
>
> Especially the way the counts seem to be going this evening (November
> 2)! If we're stuck with Bush for another four years, we may as well bid
> farewell to our country as we knew it (and the progress of the last
> forty years).
>
I watched some of the coverage last night & looked at some news reports
this morning. The US system is so complicated - it amazes me that they
are saying Bush is ahead, but they still don't know for sure who won.
One news report said that some of the ballots probably wont be counted
for over a week!
--
Blessed Cecilia, appear in visions
To all musicians, appear and inspire:
Translated Daughter, come down and startle
Composing mortals with immortal fire.
Dale
Samuel Vriezen wrote:
> Samuel Vriezen wrote:
>
>> Just for fun:
>>
>> Kerry 52%
>> Bush 46%
>> Nader 2%
>>
>
> Got that wrong it seems!
>
Seems those young voters Kerry was banking on were seduced by bongs,
beer kegs, and casual sex again.
Oh well...
dmh
Dale
Probably: at least that's how my friends and I are looking at it. The
results do seem to speak (once again) to the relative pointlessness of
extending the vote to 18 year-olds: they failed to show up at the polls
by the toga-load. Without a draft, the boys didn't feel personally
involved, and don't care if the poor black man's son gets blown up in
the desert. no skin off their nose!
dmh
Dale
Nightingale wrote:
> EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque) wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Richard Loeb wrote:
>>
>>> Nothing will stop me from doubting the intelligence of the average
>>> American voter Richard
>>
>>
>>
>> Especially the way the counts seem to be going this evening (November
>> 2)! If we're stuck with Bush for another four years, we may as well
>> bid farewell to our country as we knew it (and the progress of the
>> last forty years).
>>
>
> I watched some of the coverage last night & looked at some news reports
> this morning. The US system is so complicated - it amazes me that they
> are saying Bush is ahead, but they still don't know for sure who won.
> One news report said that some of the ballots probably wont be counted
> for over a week!
>
They already know, but they're being tight about it. I've heard the
process by which Kerry could wring a win out of Ohio, and it's a
fantasy. Kerry will probably concede relatively soon, and we can get
back to chuckling over the Idiot-Elect, and putting our pants on three
legs at a time, as usual. I guess the choice between a past-killer and a
modern-killer just wasn't as compelling a difference as many thought. I
wonder if Kerry will STILL hunt down adn kill the terrorists, on his
own, or does his dedication only go as far as sending others to do it?
dmh
dmh
Samuel Vriezen
> Of course, Clinton would be running for his fourth term if it hadn't
> been for term limits, a profoundly stupid idea which, mathematically,
> works against better-than-average office holders, Gore would have won
> not just the popular but the electoral vote in the last election had
> the votes been properly counted or Nader not been in the race, and
> Bush would be history today if it hadn't been for the war on terror or
> if Kerry had been a more compelling campaigner. It's really a pretty
> bad showing for Bush under the circumstances, which robbed the
> Democrats of their advantage on domestic issues and the War in Iraq.
> So to some degree, I think the Democrats have just lucked out.
The Republicans have completely mastered the art of propaganda, and the
Democrats simply don't dare to do anything that might reek of an agenda
or idea. It's the times - everything that is not militantly radical and
fundamentalist is out of fashion.
You heard about this politically charged murder that took place in
Amsterdam yesterday? That's the Holland incarnation of present day
world-wide fashion. The world's a bloody mess is what it is.
OTOH, I just came back from the dentist whom I hadn't seen in five years
and I have no cavities or other problems. So perhaps God exists after
all and everybody with cavities is a heathen who deserves painful death!
Peter T. Daniels
Since you don't know what you're talking about, stop talking about it.
Peter T. Daniels
>
> EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque) wrote:
> >
> >
> > Richard Loeb wrote:
> >
> >> Nothing will stop me from doubting the intelligence of the average
> >> American voter Richard
> >
> >
> > Especially the way the counts seem to be going this evening (November
> > 2)! If we're stuck with Bush for another four years, we may as well bid
> > farewell to our country as we knew it (and the progress of the last
> > forty years).
> >
>
> I watched some of the coverage last night & looked at some news reports
> this morning. The US system is so complicated - it amazes me that they
> are saying Bush is ahead, but they still don't know for sure who won.
> One news report said that some of the ballots probably wont be counted
> for over a week!
Ohio's absentee ballots are acceptable if postmarked by election day.
They need to wait long enough to be sure all of them have arrived.
Josh Hill
<m.be...@spamchello.nl> wrote:
>Josh Hill wrote:
>
>>>Yeah, it's 6:30am in the UK and I just woke up and although it's not
>>>over yet I have to say it looks like The Idiot is going to win again! I
>>>don't understand it! What exactly does he have to do to get voted out?
>>
>> Amazing, isn't it?
>
>Not for anyone with a braincel or two. It's bleedingly obvious that
>you don't let a big sponsor of George Bush provide the voting boot
>technology.
>
>Do you have any idea how easy it is to twitch those? And does anyone
>have any doubt whatosever that the guys who caused Abu Graib, Guantanamo
>and Iraq would have problems twitching a few voting boots?
Yawn. As usual, you mistake could for did. But your silly-season
baseless assertion aside, sure the Republicans committed election
fraud. This is news? So did the Democrats: it happens in every
election and has been happening before we were born.
The Republicans probably do it more than the Dems these days -- it
used to be other way around -- but the problem here isn't that they've
stolen a few thousand votes, but rather that the Democrats weren't
able to win the solid majority they should have. Because while you
sleazy Republican types always have the advantage of hitting below the
belt (am I not talking to a nym forger here?) we Democrat types have
the truth on our side, and when we fail to make use of that natural
advantage, it means we're doing something wrong.
>It's so naieve it hurts. Not that it matters to me that Bush won - I
>think you guys deserve him and I applaud the bankruptcy of the States
>which is now inevitable.
You are so laughable, Bonkers, what with your ability to fall for
every tin-plated Chicken Little concoction for the rubes. You're just
like the people who voted for Bush, only you don't realize it, because
you're like those guys on that episode of Star Trek: "Don't you see,
captain, he's black on the /left/ side of his face, I'm black on the
/right./
No, the United States isn't going to go bankrupt, any more than we're
going to run so low on energy that the country will collapse, which
was, I believe, your last juvenile assertion.
>But I don't want to hear you whine about
>election results if the whole thing is a scam in the first place.
This remark is so ludicrously self-contradictory that it's probably
best taken to the vet and put to sleep.
Josh Hill
>Josh Hill wrote:
Exactly. And so unless there's some kind of dire emergency we aren't
going to see a front door draft -- just a back door draft that keeps
the poor from leaving the service when their term of enlistment is up
and uses the middle American huntin' fishin' patriot types who signed
on to the National Guard thinking that they'd only be bombing babies
on weekends.
Too bad, really. Even the old class-slanted draft with its student
deferments was better than what we have now, because despite the
loopholes enough middle class kids felt threatened by it to make the
war an issue of "am I willing to fight in this" rather than "am I
willing to send Stokely and Pedro."
Samuel Vriezen
> "Samuel Vriezen" <sqv.do.not.spam@xs4all> wrote in message
> news:4187e9fb$0$34762$e4fe...@news.xs4all.nl...
>
>>>
>>>Kerry wins White House. Conservatives maintain majority in the
>>>Congress and Senate. Kerry accomplishes little, although spending
>>>plummets. A one-term president.
>>
>>Possibly, but the more important thing is whether Americans are going to
>>let Bush get away with what he has been doing or not.
>
>
> I'd wager real money that they won't, but it saddens me to think it's a close
> bet.
>
I actually DID wager real money, love the game, and I'm very sorry for
all you good americans that the electorate has opted not to mind Bush's
disastrous and prevaricatory style of government but OTOH, I think it's
good for us in Europe. The world has been watching these elections
wide-eyed, we even got it seems more serious coverage of the campaigns
in our national papers than we would of our own elections - which is an
indication of how far public consciousness in this country has drifted
away from its proper business.
M.H.Benders
>>>Amazing, isn't it?
>>
>>Not for anyone with a braincel or two. It's bleedingly obvious that
>>you don't let a big sponsor of George Bush provide the voting boot
>>technology.
>>
>>Do you have any idea how easy it is to twitch those? And does anyone
>>have any doubt whatosever that the guys who caused Abu Graib, Guantanamo
>>and Iraq would have problems twitching a few voting boots?
>
> Yawn.
Ah, the begeisterte knight of democratic idealism!
> As usual, you mistake could for did.
It's a simple as that, isn't it. I mean, who cares that anyone could
manipulate the votes? It's not like anyone will actually use that power.
And there's your buddy, Putin, declaring that a victory of Bush is a
victory in the war on terror. Mr Putin has taken the American model
for the elections in his own country. Almost all media are state owned
now. The worst dictatorships are those who disguise themselves as
democracies. Anyone could point out that obvious fact, really.
But no, Hillbilly thinks its just fine that vote counts are as easy to
manipulate as his oversized wig.
> No, the United States isn't going to go bankrupt,
You're already bankrupt, pal.
> any more than we're
> going to run so low on energy that the country will collapse,
Ah yes, the Iraqi's who were dancing and laughing in the streets
at the sight of the American militairy have now moved over
to the energy debate. What's wrong with coal?
M.H.Benders
M.H.Benders
> we Democrat types have
> the truth on our side,
And Kant, Bach and Keats, we may add.
While the other sides have what? Ritsos?
Prince? Popcorn? Pussy?
What good is all that if you don't have the truth on your side?
All a man needs is the wigshape of the truth and the newsgroups
will fall flat to his feet.
M.H.Benders
jeffc
"Peter T. Daniels" <gram...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:418819...@worldnet.att.net...
> > > > >
> > > > > You haven't been following the Senate races, have you.
> > > >
> > > > The Senate races will be close, but nothing suggests he's wrong that
> > Republicans
> > > > (ahem, not "conservatives") maintain Senate majority. If Kerry
accomplished
> > > > nothing, that would be better than the damage done by the current
president.
> > > > Besides, a spending gridlock would probably be a good thing. Worked for
> > > > Clinton.
> > >
> > > Dems defeat R incumbents in Alaska (Murkowski, appointed by her daddy)
> > > and Kentucky (Bunning, a former baseball player who seems seriously
> > > demented); which of the 14(!) open seats do you expect to switch from D
> > > to R?
> >
> > I have to admit I'm not following you. Are you saying Republicans maintain a
> > majority, or don't?
>
> They definitely lose 2 incumbents. If none of the 14 change from D to R,
> the D's win. Which of the 14 do you expect to change from D to R?
What gave you the impression I was expecting any to change? I don't get your
question.
jeffc
"Dale" <dm...@citilink.com> wrote in message
news:4188E429...@citilink.com...
>
> Seems those young voters Kerry was banking on were seduced by bongs,
> beer kegs, and casual sex again.
>
> Oh well...
No, that's an easy picture to paint, but it's not accurate. The fact is, there
are millions upon millions of lazy people in this country. The turnout *was*
higher this year, including younger voters, but it's still disgustingly low IMO.
EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque)
Dale wrote:
As more and more jobs disappear, and we become another third
world country.
>
> dmh
>
EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque)
Alex wrote:
> EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque) wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Richard Loeb wrote:
>>
>>> Nothing will stop me from doubting the intelligence of the average
>>> American voter Richard
>>
>>
>>
>> Especially the way the counts seem to be going this evening (November
>> 2)! If we're stuck with Bush for another four years, we may as well
>> bid farewell to our country as we knew it (and the progress of the
>> last forty years).
>
>
> Yeah, it's 6:30am in the UK and I just woke up and although it's not
> over yet I have to say it looks like The Idiot is going to win again! I
> don't understand it! What exactly does he have to do to get voted out?
He CAN'T be "voted out" - he's set for the next four years,
and cannot be re-elected (unless he suspends the law), so he
can do whatever he pleases, now. True, we COULD impeach
him, but if the movement to do so didn't prevent his being
put back in office, we'll just have to wait until he does
something even WORSE than invading Iraq on his own personal
whim. (Maybe nuking Iran?) Never mind the "blessing", God
HELP America, if her electorate was stupid enough to give
the village idiot control for a second term!
Matthew Fields
>EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque) wrote:
>>
>>
>> Richard Loeb wrote:
>>
>>> Nothing will stop me from doubting the intelligence of the average
>>> American voter Richard
>>
>>
>> Especially the way the counts seem to be going this evening (November
>> 2)! If we're stuck with Bush for another four years, we may as well bid
>> farewell to our country as we knew it (and the progress of the last
>> forty years).
>
>Yeah, it's 6:30am in the UK and I just woke up and although it's not
>over yet I have to say it looks like The Idiot is going to win again! I
>don't understand it! What exactly does he have to do to get voted out?
Find the smoking gun behind the election fraud that's holding things up
now, same as 4 years ago.
Or perhaps start treating the US as the new Axis Power that it's on
the verge of becoming.
I'm thinking Wellington, NZ looks better all the time.
--
Matthew H. Fields http://personal.www.umich.edu/~fields
Music: Splendor in Sound
To be great, do things better and better. Don't wait for talent: no such thing.
Brights have a naturalistic world-view. http://www.the-brights.net/
EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque)
Nightingale wrote:
> EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque) wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Richard Loeb wrote:
>>
>>> Nothing will stop me from doubting the intelligence of the average
>>> American voter Richard
>>
>>
>>
>> Especially the way the counts seem to be going this evening (November
>> 2)! If we're stuck with Bush for another four years, we may as well
>> bid farewell to our country as we knew it (and the progress of the
>> last forty years).
>>
>
> I watched some of the coverage last night & looked at some news reports
> this morning. The US system is so complicated - it amazes me that they
> are saying Bush is ahead, but they still don't know for sure who won.
> One news report said that some of the ballots probably wont be counted
> for over a week!
I think the trick is to psych your opponent into conceding
before the last vote is counted, just in case the uncounted
ballots might swing things his way.
>
EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque)
Dale wrote:
>
> Probably: at least that's how my friends and I are looking at it. The
> results do seem to speak (once again) to the relative pointlessness of
> extending the vote to 18 year-olds: they failed to show up at the polls
> by the toga-load. Without a draft, the boys didn't feel personally
> involved, and don't care if the poor black man's son gets blown up in
> the desert. no skin off their nose!
Does anyone REALLY believe reinstating the draft is not just
around the corner? Like the first order of business, the
day after the inauguration? Just before they overturn Roe v
Wade? (I weep for my country.)
>
>
>
> dmh
>
Josh Hill
<sqv.do.not.spam@xs4all> wrote:
>Josh Hill wrote:
>
>> Of course, Clinton would be running for his fourth term if it hadn't
>> been for term limits, a profoundly stupid idea which, mathematically,
>> works against better-than-average office holders, Gore would have won
>> not just the popular but the electoral vote in the last election had
>> the votes been properly counted or Nader not been in the race, and
>> Bush would be history today if it hadn't been for the war on terror or
>> if Kerry had been a more compelling campaigner. It's really a pretty
>> bad showing for Bush under the circumstances, which robbed the
>> Democrats of their advantage on domestic issues and the War in Iraq.
>> So to some degree, I think the Democrats have just lucked out.
>
>The Republicans have completely mastered the art of propaganda, and the
>Democrats simply don't dare to do anything that might reek of an agenda
>or idea. It's the times - everything that is not militantly radical and
>fundamentalist is out of fashion.
It has something to do with television, don't you think? Sound bites
and photo ops favor the simple and the spectacular, and the lie, and
that's true whether the perpetrator is Osama Bin Laden or the
Republican National Committee. The Democrats have been reluctant to
respond in kind, because to do so is to ratify and worsen the
debasement of the political process, and even when they do adapt and
respond effectively, the result is at best a random one.
>You heard about this politically charged murder that took place in
>Amsterdam yesterday? That's the Holland incarnation of present day
>world-wide fashion. The world's a bloody mess is what it is.
I did. Of course, the world always was a mess in various regards, but
I don't think we'd be seeing as much of this stuff as we are if it
earned only a few column inches in the paper.
>OTOH, I just came back from the dentist whom I hadn't seen in five years
>and I have no cavities or other problems. So perhaps God exists after
>all and everybody with cavities is a heathen who deserves painful death!
Hey, I had a dental checkup yesterday. I admit, though, that the only
reason I didn't have cavities was because I had a wisdom tooth
extracted three weeks ago. Still, I'd say I'm not subject to death, at
least if the death-givers don't think too hard and realize that the
cavity is still right where it was: it's the surrounding tooth that
was removed.
Nightingale
I just heard on the radio that Kerry has conceded. Sad news :-(
Nightingale
> In article <cm9uc4$mio$1...@news7.svr.pol.co.uk>, Alex <Spa...@Up.Baby> wrote:
>
>>EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque) wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>Richard Loeb wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Nothing will stop me from doubting the intelligence of the average
>>>>American voter Richard
>>>
>>>
>>>Especially the way the counts seem to be going this evening (November
>>>2)! If we're stuck with Bush for another four years, we may as well bid
>>>farewell to our country as we knew it (and the progress of the last
>>>forty years).
>>
>>Yeah, it's 6:30am in the UK and I just woke up and although it's not
>>over yet I have to say it looks like The Idiot is going to win again! I
>>don't understand it! What exactly does he have to do to get voted out?
>
>
> Find the smoking gun behind the election fraud that's holding things up
> now, same as 4 years ago.
>
> Or perhaps start treating the US as the new Axis Power that it's on
> the verge of becoming.
>
> I'm thinking Wellington, NZ looks better all the time.
>
>
Why Wellington?
Ryan
just ceceeded. It's a sad day for my country, and I fear for it's
future, as well as the world's.
One thing I don't think was brought up here was the fact that it isn't
becuase the voters are stupid (primarily anyway) but because they got
that good ole time religion, you know, the kind responsible for the
deaths of how many millions from how many wars? It is estimated that
42% of the American people consider themselves evangleical christians,
42%! Add to that the more sedate christians and the rich and you'll
probably be close to the 52% that won Bush this election. The tragic
part is that all these good christians don't seem to be able to
realize that Bush does not lead by christian example. Lying to the
public, starting false wars, favoring the rich and selling out our
kid's futures wasn't exactly the deffinition of Christ-like behaviour
last time I checked. In fact, it's quite the opposite. Years ago
when I was selling Kirby vacuum cleaners door to door I was taught to
go after the Christians, they'll buy anything, because they're afraid
of everything. I didn't want to believe that at the time, but now I
cannot overlook it.
I am truly saddened today. Get ready for WWIII, halleujah.
Richard Loeb
"Ryan" <ink...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:dea39397.04110...@posting.google.com...
Robert Briggs
> Robert Briggs wrote:
> > Dale wrote:
> >
> > > Polls don't mean much.
> > O cynice inveterate.
>
> It's really not cynicism (although - despite it's modern
> patina - there's nothing wrong with being cynical) ...
Did I say you were wrong?
Nightingale
> I keep thinking of the film "Inherit the Wind" Richard
>
I don't know that one - what's it about?
Richard Loeb
which a schoolteacher was tried for teaching the theory of evolution - it
has some real food for thought esp. concerning the follies of
Fundamentalism. In the real trial Clarence Darrow (defense) made Williams
Jennings Bryan (Prosecution) look like a fool. Richard
"Nightingale" <si...@music.ca> wrote in message
news:2usj53F...@uni-berlin.de...
Nightingale
> The tragic
> part is that all these good christians don't seem to be able to
> realize that Bush does not lead by christian example.
I don't understand. Why is religion so important in the election, and
why do so many of the Christians support him?
> Lying to the
> public, starting false wars, favoring the rich and selling out our
> kid's futures wasn't exactly the deffinition of Christ-like behaviour
> last time I checked. In fact, it's quite the opposite.
Right.
> Years ago
> when I was selling Kirby vacuum cleaners door to door I was taught to
> go after the Christians, they'll buy anything, because they're afraid
> of everything. I didn't want to believe that at the time, but now I
> cannot overlook it.
Why are they so afraid? That's not true of most of the Christians I
know here, btw.
>
> I am truly saddened today. Get ready for WWIII, halleujah.
How did a religion that preaches "love you neighbour as yourself" become
something to justify so many wars :-(
Nightingale
> It's a superb dramatization of the Scopes trial in Tennessee in the 20s in
> which a schoolteacher was tried for teaching the theory of evolution - it
> has some real food for thought esp. concerning the follies of
> Fundamentalism. In the real trial Clarence Darrow (defense) made Williams
> Jennings Bryan (Prosecution) look like a fool. Richard
>
Thanks. I actually remember seeing that on TV a long time ago, but had
forgotten the title.
Dale
I know EXACTLY what I'm talking about, monkey pizzle...
dmh
Dale
Exactly: but a really LARGE banana republic, full of stupider-than-usual
peons, who are proud to do what they can for Massa.
dmh
Dale
I was kidding of course, but the fact is the Dems registered a TON of
young voters, and a large amount of them failed to do their business,
while the Republicans registered a MEGATON of church-goers, who did do
their business.
dmh
>
>
Dale
Ryan wrote:
> Well, I'm sure by the time this posts you'll all have heard...Kerry
> just ceceeded. It's a sad day for my country, and I fear for it's
> future, as well as the world's.
>
> One thing I don't think was brought up here was the fact that it isn't
> becuase the voters are stupid (primarily anyway) but because they got
> that good ole time religion, you know, the kind responsible for the
> deaths of how many millions from how many wars?
"Religious" and "stupid" are synonyms. I don't know what one should call
a person who really believes that over two thousand years ago, a man
walked on water and rose from the dead, and that Moses parted the
waters, and that we're all working lousey jobs because some damn woman
ate an apple, etc. A kinder term might be "deluded" but that's splitting
hairs.
dmh
Nightingale
>
>
> Ryan wrote:
>
>> Well, I'm sure by the time this posts you'll all have heard...Kerry
>> just ceceeded. It's a sad day for my country, and I fear for it's
>> future, as well as the world's.
>>
>> One thing I don't think was brought up here was the fact that it isn't
>> becuase the voters are stupid (primarily anyway) but because they got
>> that good ole time religion, you know, the kind responsible for the
>> deaths of how many millions from how many wars?
>
>
> "Religious" and "stupid" are synonyms.
I disagree with this - some certainly are stupid, but not all.
> I don't know what one should call
> a person who really believes that over two thousand years ago, a man
> walked on water and rose from the dead, and that Moses parted the
> waters, and that we're all working lousey jobs because some damn woman
> ate an apple, etc. A kinder term might be "deluded" but that's splitting
> hairs.
>
Not all religious people take every word in the bible literally.
Nightingale
> Dale wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Ryan wrote:
>>
>>> Well, I'm sure by the time this posts you'll all have heard...Kerry
>>> just ceceeded. It's a sad day for my country, and I fear for it's
>>> future, as well as the world's.
>>>
>>> One thing I don't think was brought up here was the fact that it isn't
>>> becuase the voters are stupid (primarily anyway) but because they got
>>> that good ole time religion, you know, the kind responsible for the
>>> deaths of how many millions from how many wars?
>>
>>
>>
>> "Religious" and "stupid" are synonyms.
>
>
> I disagree with this - some certainly are stupid, but not all.
>
Also, don't forget all the stupid people who are not religious!
Matthew Fields
>
>I know EXACTLY what I'm talking about, monkey pizzle...
>
>dmh
I don't see alt.urea.simian in the newsgroups.
John Harrington
> Daniel Kolle wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 01 Nov 2004 18:24:19 +0100, Samuel Vriezen
> > <sqv.do.not.spam@xs4all> thought hard and said:
> >
> >
> >>Just for fun:
> >>
> >>Kerry 52%
> >>Bush 46%
> >>Nader 2%
> >
> >
> > Kerry wins White House. Conservatives maintain majority in the
> > Congress and Senate. Kerry accomplishes little, although spending
> > plummets. A one-term president.
>
> Possibly, but the more important thing is whether Americans are going to
> let Bush get away with what he has been doing or not.
Surprise!
J
Dale
Nightingale wrote:
> Dale wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Ryan wrote:
>>
>>> Well, I'm sure by the time this posts you'll all have heard...Kerry
>>> just ceceeded. It's a sad day for my country, and I fear for it's
>>> future, as well as the world's.
>>>
>>> One thing I don't think was brought up here was the fact that it isn't
>>> becuase the voters are stupid (primarily anyway) but because they got
>>> that good ole time religion, you know, the kind responsible for the
>>> deaths of how many millions from how many wars?
>>
>>
>>
>> "Religious" and "stupid" are synonyms.
>
>
> I disagree with this - some certainly are stupid, but not all.
"Religious" and "stupid" are synonymous.
dmh
>
>> I don't know what one should call a person who really believes that
>> over two thousand years ago, a man walked on water and rose from the
>> dead, and that Moses parted the waters, and that we're all working
>> lousey jobs because some damn woman ate an apple, etc. A kinder term
>> might be "deluded" but that's splitting hairs.
>>
>
> Not all religious people take every word in the bible literally.
>
No, but they really do think that damn set of lies and fairy tales
somehow corresponds to a moral imperative, and they certainly believe
much of the self-contradicting "philosophy" makes a coherent case for
Jesus' divinity. And almost every one of them actually thinks the Ten
commandents is a cogent set of workable human laws. That's stupid enough
for me.
dmh
>
Dale
Matthew Fields wrote:
> In article <4189285B...@citilink.com>, Dale <dm...@citilink.com> wrote:
>
>>I know EXACTLY what I'm talking about, monkey pizzle...
>>
>>dmh
>
>
> I don't see alt.urea.simian in the newsgroups.
>
>
>
>
Coming next month, but only on AOL!
dmh