Sad but true
AZDuffman
Professor Joseph Olson of Hemline University School of Law, St. Paul ,
Minnesota , points out some interesting facts concerning the
Presidential election:
Number of States won by: Democrats: 19 Republicans: 29
Square miles of land won by: Democrats: 580,000 Republicans:
2,427,000
Population of counties won by: Democrats: 127 million Republicans:
143 million
Murder rate per 100,000 residents in counties won by: Democrats:
13.2 Republicans: 2.1
Professor Olson adds: "In aggregate, the map of the territory
Republicans won was mostly the land owned by the taxpaying citizens of
the country. Democrat territory mostly encompassed those citizens
living in government-owned tenements and living off various forms of
government welfare..."
Olson believes the United States is now somewhere between the
"complacency and apathy" phase of Professor Tyler 's definition of
democracy, with some forty percent of the nation's population already
having reached the "governmental dependency" phase.
If Congress grants amnesty and citizenship to twenty million criminal
invaders called illegal's and they vote, then we can say goodbye to
the USA in fewer than five years. If you are in favor of this, then
by all means, delete this message.
If you are not, then pass this along to help everyone realize just how
much is at stake, knowing that apathy is the greatest danger to our
freedom.
Paul Tomblin
>Square miles of land won by: Democrats: 580,000 Republicans:
>2,427,000
Yeah, for some stupid reason we allow *people* to vote, not acres of land.
Obama won, your guy lost, deal with it.
--
Paul Tomblin <ptom...@xcski.com> http://blog.xcski.com/
Medication did wonders for me, Dave. Perhaps it could for you, if a
crowbar and half a pound of axle grease counts as medication.
-- Red Drag Diva
Joe
"AZDuffman" <srduf...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:8d17372e-ca60-4cfd...@a23g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
> SAD, BUT IS IT TRUE? HARD TO ARGUE WITH THE FACTS...........
>
>
>
> Professor Joseph Olson of Hemline University School of Law, St. Paul ,
> Minnesota , points out some interesting facts concerning the
> Presidential election:
<lies, stretching of the truth, and embellishments snipped>
Olson has denied for years ever publishing the falsehoods. Which by the way
are basically the same ones that circulated with Bush and Gore..just fast
forward to 2008 and change the names.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/ballot/athenian.asp
I know the truth though is hard to swallow though for the 6 Republicants
left.
Now I know a good Rebublicant such as yourself would never lie about
anything <snicker> but please try harder with your trolling next time...and
please keep enjoying those sour grapes.
--
Joe
John Passaniti
> SAD, BUT IS IT TRUE? HARD TO ARGUE WITH THE FACTS...........
Mmmm, facts.
I found this by typing nothing more than "Professor Joseph Olson of
Hemline University School of Law" into Google, and found the above
link first as well to some other related hoaxes. How much
embarrassment would you have saved yourself if you did that? Too bad
that facts actually aren't opinions that someone pulls out of their
ass and breathlessly posts on the Conservative blogs you use as a
substitute for research.
Greg Pratt
--
Gregory Pratt g...@panix.com
East Rutherford, NJ, USA http://www.panix.com/~gp/
"You're only given one little spark of madness. You mustn't lose it."
PGP Key Fingerprint: DC60 FCDE 91E2 3D41 91A3 45DB B474 3D3A 3621 AAFE
AZDuffman
Well, lets see. GOP did win more geographic territory and more
states. No secret the Dems do better in places like Detroit, LA, and
DC with high crime rates. Also no secret that the bottom 40% are
paying virtually no income tax. And it is not in dispute that the
"stimulus" package does quite a bit to undo the successful welfare
reform of 1996, plus forces states to make more benefits "permanant"
with only "temporary" funding for them--a reason some govenors
declined part of the package.
I could add in all the organization of voters in welfare-dependent
areas by groups like ACORN but why bother? In your "I HATE BUSH-I
HATE CONSERVATIVES" world all these are good things.
NEWT IN 2012!
John Passaniti
> Well, lets see. GOP did win more geographic territory and more
> states.
False. You see, your problem is that you're posting in a newsgroup that
has far too many people from the reality-based community in it. What
you want is something like Free Republic or something like that where
you can write messages with numbers pulled out of your ass and watch the
stupid fucks mindlessly applaud.
Since you refuse to view information that runs contrary to your beliefs,
I'll provide a simple summary here. You'll ignore this too, but that's
okay. The others playing at home can enjoy the show:
> Number of States won by: Democrats: 19 Republicans: 29
False. Final totals are Democrats: 28, Republicans 22
> Square miles of land won by: Democrats: 580,000
> Republicans: 2,427,000
False. FactCheck.org found the actual numbers to be Democrats:
1,483,702 and Republicans: 2,310,315. So your number is off 2.5 times
on the Democrat side and a bit high on the Republican side. You'll
proudly still find victory here because the amount of land area is
indeed bigger. But until blades of grass are allowed to vote, it's one
of those meaningless victories.
> Population of counties won by: Democrats: 127 million
> Republicans: 143 million
False. FactCheck.org provided Democrats: 183 million, Republicans: 119
million. So they grossly under-counted Democrats, and grossly
over-counted Republicans. Weird. It's almost like they had a political
motivation to fudge numbers!
> Murder rate per 100,000 residents in counties won by: Democrats:
> 13.2 Republicans: 2.1
False. FactCheck.org also looked at this. The numbers they arrived at
(which are supported by public sources) has 6.56 per 100k for Democrats
and 3.6 per 100k for Republicans.
> No secret the Dems do better in places like Detroit, LA, and
> DC with high crime rates.
They are also *cities*. Are you seriously shocked that the murder rate
in cities is going to higher than in some field in Kansas? Maybe if the
crime statistic was goat raping, the numbers would be different.
> Also no secret that the bottom 40% are
> paying virtually no income tax. And it is not in dispute that the
> "stimulus" package does quite a bit to undo the successful welfare
> reform of 1996, plus forces states to make more benefits "permanant"
> with only "temporary" funding for them--a reason some govenors
> declined part of the package.
Classic you. When your sources are shown to be shit, you poop out
another non sequitur in an attempt to distract from the first steaming
pile you left behind.
> I could add in all the organization of voters in welfare-dependent
> areas by groups like ACORN but why bother? In your "I HATE BUSH-I
> HATE CONSERVATIVES" world all these are good things.
Yes, continue to tell yourself these are the reasons why your party got
so badly spanked. And in the meantime, before you post asinine
nonsense, at least do yourself the favor of checking against sources
like Snopes or FactCheck.org or even the less psychotic in your own
party who still have a shred of intellectual integrity who aren't afraid
to say what is obvious.
> NEWT IN 2012!
Yes! I rub my hands in glee hoping he will run! I can't wait when
people start looking into the issue of character and they get to how he
treated his first wife. But even better will be the discussion about
where he met his current (third) wife. Seems that when Newt was leading
a Congressional investigation into Bill Clinton's affair, he was having
one of his own. Maybe it was research.
So yes, Newt in 2012! And maybe we can have David Vitter as his running
mate and Larry Craig as the Secretary of State. Maybe they can also
change the Republican motto to "Do as we say, Not as we do." It
probably sounds better in Latin.