One last political post
Bob Schwartz
I like to think that over the course of many years of news reading
I can recognize when there is no point in continuing a thread. I
don't jump into the helmet threads, I try to avoid the political
threads, and I don't follow up anything by Kunich. Because there
is just no point, you may as well be talking to the wall. People
that get into it with Kunich on helmet threads... well I just
don't know what the hell they are thinking.
So this is an exercise for you guys that insist on getting into
it beyond the point of reason. I'm going to post something
provocative, the challenge is to just ignore it and move on to
another thread. Ready?
JT is right. People in red states are stupid. Here's proof:
http://www.ucolick.org/~bjw/misc/obesity_vote2004.gif
http://www.jsonline.com/alive/news/nov04/277853.asp
Take a deep breath, move along. You can do it.
Bob 'Cross is beautiful' Schwartz
cv...@execpc.com
g-spot
Bob Schwartz wrote:
>
> People in red states are stupid.
Dumbass,
That may be true. However, stupidity is hardly bounded by the color red, so the
qualification is meaningless. You are all dumbasses. Dumbassy knows no bounds.
Steve
Schwartz" <cv...@shell.core.com> wrote:
> I'm not claiming to be a great source of wisdom or anything, but
> I like to think that over the course of many years of news reading
> I can recognize when there is no point in continuing a thread. I
> don't jump into the helmet threads, I try to avoid the political
> threads, and I don't follow up anything by Kunich. Because there
> is just no point, you may as well be talking to the wall. People
> that get into it with Kunich on helmet threads... well I just
> don't know what the hell they are thinking.
>
> So this is an exercise for you guys that insist on getting into
> it beyond the point of reason. I'm going to post something
> provocative, the challenge is to just ignore it and move on to
> another thread. Ready?
>
> JT is right. People in red states are stupid. Here's proof:
This statement shows what side of the fence you are on! So much for your
above writing about trying to sound reasonable and objective..
>
> http://www.ucolick.org/~bjw/misc/obesity_vote2004.gif
These stupid "Chung Charts" mean nothing. Most states were won/lost by a few
percent. So that does not say who voted for who.. Since they are all over
12% they are ALL considered fattie masters by Henry and some other stuck-up
racer types.
Almost HALF of the people in EVERY STATE voted for each candidate.
This stupid Blue state/ Red state categorizing is shooting your (democratic)
constituency in the ass!
>
> http://www.jsonline.com/alive/news/nov04/277853.asp
Nice! ONE study? There are multiple "one study" ideas that are a joke...
TM
"Steve" <sds...@NOTHEREsbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:BDC8B9F5.CD88E%sds...@NOTHEREsbcglobal.net...
> On 11/23/04 8:18 AM, in article 10q6olu...@corp.supernews.com, "Bob
> Schwartz" <cv...@shell.core.com> wrote:
>
>> I'm not claiming to be a great source of wisdom or anything, but
>> I like to think that over the course of many years of news reading
>> I can recognize when there is no point in continuing a thread. I
>> don't jump into the helmet threads, I try to avoid the political
>> threads, and I don't follow up anything by Kunich. Because there
>> is just no point, you may as well be talking to the wall. People
>> that get into it with Kunich on helmet threads... well I just
>> don't know what the hell they are thinking.
>>
>> So this is an exercise for you guys that insist on getting into
>> it beyond the point of reason. I'm going to post something
>> provocative, the challenge is to just ignore it and move on to
>> another thread. Ready?
>>
>> JT is right. People in red states are stupid. Here's proof:
> This statement shows what side of the fence you are on! So much for your
> above writing about trying to sound reasonable and objective..
>
>>
>> http://www.ucolick.org/~bjw/misc/obesity_vote2004.gif
>
> These stupid "Chung Charts" mean nothing. Most states were won/lost by a
> few
> percent. So that does not say who voted for who..
psycholist
"g-spot" <gec_...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:41A376FB...@sbcglobal.net...
I believe it's "dumbassity" ... dumbass. ;-)
Bob C.
Warren
I know one thing. Anybody who can spell "dumbassy" AND use it properly in a
sentence isn't behaving stupidly.
-WG
Stewart Fleming
What happens when they change the colouring scheme?
Red-Blue distinctions are chosen by the media (surprise)
Stewart Fleming
psycholist wrote:
> I believe it's "dumbassity" ... dumbass. ;-)
"Dumbassy shows no bounds" is a tautology.
Carl Sundquist
"Warren" <war...@USVHremove.com> wrote in message
news:DsMod.25733$6q2....@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
Do some of Bush's ambassador appointments make our posts in foreign
countries "dumbassies" or just "dumbassadors"?
Robert Chung
>
> Do some of Bush's ambassador appointments make our posts in foreign
> countries "dumbassies" or just "dumbassadors"?
You making fun of His Excellency Howard Leach?
Benjamin Weiner
> "Bob Schwartz" <cv...@shell.core.com> wrote:
> > http://www.ucolick.org/~bjw/misc/obesity_vote2004.gif
>
> These stupid "Chung Charts" mean nothing. Most states were won/lost by a few
> percent. So that does not say who voted for who.. Since they are all over
> 12% they are ALL considered fattie masters by Henry and some other stuck-up
> racer types.
Jesus H. Christ, Stevie, he posts a link to my plot on my webpage
and you call it a Chung Chart. (I'll have my revenge someday, Robert.)
I'd call you stupid for that, but misattributing credit is pretty much
standard operating procedure among science PhDs, so you're in good, if
dumbassed, company.
> Almost HALF of the people in EVERY STATE voted for each candidate.
>
> This stupid Blue state/ Red state categorizing is shooting your (democratic)
> constituency in the ass!
That's a reasonably good point. So why are all the professional windbags
going around and moaning about Two Americas or boasting about the mandate
for extreme sports, sorry, extreme change? Because in fact there are
some real divisions, but they don't break down as neatly as the windbags
say, and even when they do it's 50-50. Which suggests that maybe
extreme change isn't as good an idea as it sounds.
And BTW, you do live in California, get used to it.
Robert Chung
> Steve <sds...@NOTHEREsbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> "Bob Schwartz" <cv...@shell.core.com> wrote:
>
>>> http://www.ucolick.org/~bjw/misc/obesity_vote2004.gif
>>
>> These stupid "Chung Charts" mean nothing. Most states were won/lost by
>> a few percent. So that does not say who voted for who.. Since they are
>> all over 12% they are ALL considered fattie masters by Henry and some
>> other stuck-up racer types.
>
> Jesus H. Christ, Stevie, he posts a link to my plot on my webpage
> and you call it a Chung Chart.
Ouch. That must sting.
Warren
"Carl Sundquist" <car...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:ZJMod.18867$233.11089@okepread05...
Very clever.
-WG
Warren
"Benjamin Weiner" <b...@mambo.ucolick.org> wrote in message
news:d3d44363.04112...@posting.google.com...
>
> And BTW, you do live in California, get used to it.
Ah yes, where the sun always shines and the women are tan, and so is the
governor.
-WG
Tom Kunich
news:10q6olu...@corp.supernews.com...
>
> People in red states are stupid. Here's proof:
You must live in a really red zone.
Tom Kunich
news:BDC8B9F5.CD88E%sds...@NOTHEREsbcglobal.net...
>
> (democratic)
> constituency in the ass!
Do you suppose that the Liberal Democrats care for one instant? The
Democrats have no intentions of becoming more mainstream and recovering as a
party. They are bound and determined to destroy the party root and limb.
The Liberals in what's left of the Democratic Party compose roughly half of
those who voted for Kerry this time around. The others were die-hard
Democrats who continue to believe that they are Democrats despite the
actions of the party against them in every election since 1988.
I predict that they are going to continue on this insane ultra-Liberal
course and that the Democratic Party will dissolve as a real party after the
next Presidential election.
Consider:
The party that has Bob Kerrey, Joe Liberman and Zel Millar over the last
several elections have nominated Dukakis, Gore and Kerry!
Plainly the party leadership has a political agenda that doesn't involve a
President that is going to represent the majority of this country.
I expect that the Libertarians are going to catch on and change their party
planks to include some socialist nicieties and the Democrats will never
again be a party that could mount a successful challenge for the Presidency.
g-spot
Tom Kunich wrote:
>
> I expect that the Libertarians are going to catch on and change their party
> planks to include some socialist nicieties and the Democrats will never
> again be a party that could mount a successful challenge for the Presidency.
LOL. "Socialist niceties" is an oxymoron.