TEN US terrorist killed today A GOOD DAY.GO IRAQIS
Anonymous Sender
LOOKING FORWARD TO MORE DEAD US terrorist GIs IN THE COMING DAYS.
BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- Eight U.S. troops died in a car bombing Thursday and
two others were killed in separate incidents in Iraq, according to the U.S.
military.
The car bombing in Mahmoudiya, south of Baghdad, also wounded four troops,
a military spokesman told CNN.
Hours earlier in eastern Baghdad, a rocket-propelled grenade attack killed a
U.S. soldier from the 1st Cavalry, according to the coalition.
An attack in Ba'qubah, north of Baghdad, killed another U.S. soldier, U.S.
military officials said.
With the deaths, 737 U.S. troops have been killed in the Iraq war -- 534
from hostile fire, 203 in non-hostile incidents, according to U.S. military
figures.
****
gr...@internet.charitydays.co.uk
At the current Body-Bag-Rate, the number will be 916 on Election Day.
Nine hundred and sixteen.
That is assuming that the current rate remains the same.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The Lord of the Tins
<gr...@internet.charitydays.co.uk> wrote in message
news:111290l3abpbhqb92...@4ax.com...
You gloat in the loss of Coalition soldiers lives, whilst stooped over your
computer screen in your cozy home/office provided by the democratic states
that you so obviously hate. You make me sick. You are a cowardly wanker- if
you feel so strong about the Coalition forces why aren't you out there
fighting them? I'll tell you why - it's because you would shit yourself at
the thought of it.
These brave soldiers have been murdered- by sneaky cowards. When the Iraqis
had the chance to fight as a united Army they ran to the hills- as no doubt
you and your horrible like would do to.
If the coalition forces weren't hampered by all of the dogooding cowards
back home they could get the job sorted properly.
Your email header suggests that you are in the UK- you should be hung for
treason you shit.
Leighton Jones
> You gloat in the loss of Coalition soldiers lives, whilst stooped over
your
> computer screen in your cozy home/office provided by the democratic states
> that you so obviously hate. You make me sick. You are a cowardly wanker-
if
> you feel so strong about the Coalition forces why aren't you out there
> fighting them? I'll tell you why - it's because you would shit yourself at
> the thought of it.
> These brave soldiers have been murdered- by sneaky cowards. When the
Iraqis
> had the chance to fight as a united Army they ran to the hills- as no
doubt
> you and your horrible like would do to.
> If the coalition forces weren't hampered by all of the dogooding cowards
> back home they could get the job sorted properly.
> Your email header suggests that you are in the UK- you should be hung for
> treason you shit.
>
His gloating is a little hard to take. I take no pleasure in the death of
anyone in Iraq, coalition or not.
But raising to his bait isn't doing any good either.
Your statement that *When the Iraqis had the chance to fight as a united
Army they ran to the hills* is interesting though. Do you think that they
had any "chance" against vastly superior forces and equipment.
Do you also think that the people shooting at Coalition troops now were the
same ones that were in Sadams army, if so who a they fighting for now that
Sadam is gone.
Were the French resistance *sneaky cowards* or freedom fighters??
I myself would pull everyone out of Iraq, let them have it. Pull all the
Expat engineers out as well and watch their Oil industry crash. They would
then have no money for arms, and would eventually be crying out for aid.
Then we could go in and help them rebuild, as long as we were then dealing
with a democratic Iraq. Until then Pull out all western influences, good and
bad, and let them sort it out.
Cheers LJ.
Rocketman
"Leighton Jones" <leigh...@virgin.net> wrote in message
news:Hq8kc.644$Hp6...@newsfe5-gui.server.ntli.net...
Very interesting theory. Actually, it's one of the best I've heard.
R
z
news:YE9kc.42964$0u6.7118390@attbi_s03:
Pull all
>> the Expat engineers out as well and watch their Oil industry crash.
>> They would then have no money for arms, and would eventually be
>> crying out for aid. Then we could go in and help them rebuild, as
>> long as we were then dealing with a democratic Iraq. Until then Pull
>> out all western influences, good
> and
>> bad, and let them sort it out.
>> Cheers LJ.
>
> Very interesting theory. Actually, it's one of the best I've heard.
>
> R
Its a gamble Bush Co doesn't want to take. Who's to say EU powers, Russia,
China, or whoever else wouldn't step in and take our god given rights to
that oil. Thats OURS damnit!
stePH
> <gr...@internet.charitydays.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:111290l3abpbhqb92...@4ax.com...
>
>>At the current Body-Bag-Rate, the number will be 916 on Election Day.
>>
>>Nine hundred and sixteen.
>>
>>That is assuming that the current rate remains the same.
>>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>
>
>
> You gloat in the loss of Coalition soldiers lives, whilst stooped over your
> computer screen in your cozy home/office provided by the democratic states
> that you so obviously hate. You make me sick. You are a cowardly wanker- if
> you feel so strong about the Coalition forces why aren't you out there
> fighting them? I'll tell you why - it's because you would shit yourself at
> the thought of it.
> These brave soldiers have been murdered- by sneaky cowards. When the Iraqis
> had the chance to fight as a united Army they ran to the hills- as no doubt
> you and your horrible like would do to.
> If the coalition forces weren't hampered by all of the dogooding cowards
> back home they could get the job sorted properly.
> Your email header suggests that you are in the UK- you should be hung for
> treason you shit.
I don't see any gloating in the post you are responding to. All the
gloating was done by the anonymous trolltard who started the thread and
crossposted it to these three groups.
"grub" merely made a statistical observation/projection.
stePH
--
"A lion will exert himself to the utmost, even when entering the tiger's
den to throw baby rabbits off a cliff!" -- Moroboshi Ataru
David Johnston
<leigh...@virgin.net> wrote:
>I myself would pull everyone out of Iraq, let them have it. Pull all the
>Expat engineers out as well and watch their Oil industry crash.
Because after all, the only engineers in the world belong to Bush's
coalition.
Leighton Jones
"David Johnston" <rgorma...@telusplanet.net> wrote in message
news:40913fd1...@news.telusplanet.net...
An Expat engineer in this case would be any Engineer who isn't from Iraq. As
I suggested, pull them out and watch the Oil Industry in Iraq collapse.
Cheers LJ.
Jordan179
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> At the current Body-Bag-Rate, the number will be 916 on Election Day.
>
> Nine hundred and sixteen.
>
> That is assuming that the current rate remains the same.
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
You do realize that this is a fairly _low_ price in blood, by the
standards of wars? We typically lost more than this in a few hours of
fighting the typical World War I or World War II battle.
Sincerely Yours,
Jordan
Esa Perkio
: Its a gamble Bush Co doesn't want to take. Who's to say EU powers, Russia,
: China, or whoever else wouldn't step in and take our god given rights to
: that oil. Thats OURS damnit!
EU, Russia and China have had plenty of opportunities to get involved, if
so inclined. It's unlikely any of the above would try an occupation in
Iraq. It also seems rather unlikely that an occupation would do any good,
doesn't it?
And (as I know you, z, well know) treating the oil as yours will bring far
more trouble than it's worth.
(For the record, I don't agree with the subject header. Whatever we may
feel in hatred, the bell tolls for all of us, always.)
--
Esa Perkiö
z
news:c6rq4j$jmo$1...@oravannahka.helsinki.fi:
> In rec.arts.sf.written z <z...@yada.yada.com> wrote:
>
>: Its a gamble Bush Co doesn't want to take. Who's to say EU powers,
>: Russia, China, or whoever else wouldn't step in and take our god
>: given rights to that oil. Thats OURS damnit!
>
> EU, Russia and China have had plenty of opportunities to get involved,
> if so inclined. It's unlikely any of the above would try an occupation
> in Iraq. It also seems rather unlikely that an occupation would do any
> good, doesn't it?
No, but the idea that if the US were to pull out and remove all the
contract workers (and let the oil infrastructure fall to ruin) would spur
the Iraqis to invite us back in seems faulty.
Why would they invite the US back in when they could easily invite any
number of other countries in?
>
> And (as I know you, z, well know) treating the oil as yours will bring
> far more trouble than it's worth.
>
Yes. Just echoing the current policy :)
> (For the record, I don't agree with the subject header. Whatever we
> may feel in hatred, the bell tolls for all of us, always.)
We're throwing the word 'terrorist' around too often these days.
-z@yada
how...@brazee.net
On 1-May-2004, "D.F. Manno" <domm...@netscape.net> wrote:
> > These brave soldiers have been murdered- by sneaky cowards.
>
> It's a war. Did you expect them not to fight back? Or did you expect
> them to fight back on the "coalition's" terms?
When I was in the military, my job was to accomplish our country's
objectives from the cockpit of an airplane. The enemy could have called me
a sneaky coward if it wanted - it didn't matter, war is war. And lots of
"patriots" who have not served the way I have call suicide bombers "cowards"
for not standing up and being killed like fools. War is war. When the
French resistance was on our side they were heroes. The Swamp Fox was on
our side and was a hero. Americans won our revolution by not fighting
"fair and square" against a superior British force, but by fighting to win.
And for the first half of our existence, we tended to side with the
revolutionaries against the powers that be.
technomaNge
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> At the current Body-Bag-Rate, the number will be 916 on Election Day.
>
> Nine hundred and sixteen.
>
> That is assuming that the current rate remains the same.
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
Anyone care to guess the political outcome if the number is 911?
technomaNge
--
John F'ing Kerry? No f'ing way!
@nospamatomicrazor.com Dave O'Neill
"Jordan179" <JSBass...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:374990d6.04042...@posting.google.com...
Naturally, ditto Vietnam.
However, we should also recall the casulaty rate and the minor but important
point that body armour is wayyyy different to even Vietnam.
Dave
AJ Denny
troops in that small volunteer army are combat troops. In the USMC, only 15%
of troops are actual riflemen, who would be out patrolling on the streets. I
see no reason why the numbers would be very different for the US Army.
Ten soldiers is a squad which has to be replaced from somewhere. That was
much easier during Vietnam, let alone either World War.
The Lord of the Tins
"Leighton Jones" <leigh...@virgin.net> wrote in message
news:Hq8kc.644$Hp6...@newsfe5-gui.server.ntli.net...
(snip)
Actually the role of the French Resistance was and still is greatly
exaggerated in order to restore lost French pride.
The resistance had very little infuence in the course of WW2- and yes I
suppose they were sneaky.
Leighton Jones
"<Snip>
> Actually the role of the French Resistance was and still is greatly
> exaggerated in order to restore lost French pride.
> The resistance had very little infuence in the course of WW2- and yes I
> suppose they were sneaky.
>
have though sneaky was the only way to survive.
Cheers LJ.
Jordan179
>
> "Jordan179" <JSBass...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:374990d6.04042...@posting.google.com...
>
> > standards of wars? We typically lost more than this in a few hours of
> > fighting the typical World War I or World War II battle.
>
> Naturally, ditto Vietnam.
>
> However, we should also recall the casulaty rate and the minor but important
> point that body armour is wayyyy different to even Vietnam.
Yes, I know.
My point is that this is a rate of fighting we could keep up
indefinitely, even though that's not our intention. I'd also point
out that we still haven't lost as many people in Iraq as we did on
9/11, and every terrorist we kill or capture in Iraq is a terrorist
who will have no more chances to kill Americans anywhere else.
Sincerely Yours,
Jordan
Jordan179
America has a population of over 250 million people. If we can't
replace something like 10,000 casualties a year (I'm including
seriously wounded), then we should just go home and let the Terrorists
slap us around -- we would have shown our inability to be a Great
Power and would deserve the abuse.
Seriously -- if replacements start to be an issue, we need to raise
military pay and engage in some serious recruiting. It's possible we
can't win this war on the cheap -- but we have to win it.
If we don't, something like 9/11 will happen to us every year or two.
Sincerely Yours,
Jordan
@nospamatomicrazor.com Dave O'Neill
> "Dave O'Neill" <dave @ NOSPAM atomicrazor . com> wrote in message
news:<NKnkc.821$n62.9...@news-text.cableinet.net>...
> >
> > "Jordan179" <JSBass...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:374990d6.04042...@posting.google.com...
> >
> > > You do realize that this is a fairly _low_ price in blood, by the
> > > standards of wars? We typically lost more than this in a few hours of
> > > fighting the typical World War I or World War II battle.
> >
> > Naturally, ditto Vietnam.
> >
> > However, we should also recall the casulaty rate and the minor but
important
> > point that body armour is wayyyy different to even Vietnam.
>
> Yes, I know.
>
> My point is that this is a rate of fighting we could keep up
> indefinitely,
That is not something that I find comforting - as the problem is you cannot
keep up this rate of fighting *and* actually deal with global terrorism
where it is needed.
even though that's not our intention. I'd also point
> out that we still haven't lost as many people in Iraq as we did on
> 9/11,
Yet.
Although it should be noted that the Iraqi people have lost more.
and every terrorist we kill or capture in Iraq is a terrorist
> who will have no more chances to kill Americans anywhere else.
And how do you rationalise the number of new terrorists recruited since last
March?
Dave
@nospamatomicrazor.com Dave O'Neill
Unlikely every year or two, but something like is likely regardless of what
you do.
Mad Hamish
<leigh...@virgin.net> wrote:
>
>His gloating is a little hard to take. I take no pleasure in the death of
>anyone in Iraq, coalition or not.
>But raising to his bait isn't doing any good either.
>Your statement that *When the Iraqis had the chance to fight as a united
>Army they ran to the hills* is interesting though. Do you think that they
>had any "chance" against vastly superior forces and equipment.
One of the us briefings had the comment that they knew that one of
their tanks was taken out by friendly fire because the Iraqi tanks
they were fighting didn't have weapons that would penetrate the
armour.
Nor did Iraq have anything much capable of stopping complete control
of the air..
>Do you also think that the people shooting at Coalition troops now were the
>same ones that were in Sadams army, if so who a they fighting for now that
>Sadam is gone.
>Were the French resistance *sneaky cowards* or freedom fighters??
>I myself would pull everyone out of Iraq, let them have it. Pull all the
>Expat engineers out as well and watch their Oil industry crash. They would
>then have no money for arms, and would eventually be crying out for aid.
>Then we could go in and help them rebuild, as long as we were then dealing
>with a democratic Iraq. Until then Pull out all western influences, good and
>bad, and let them sort it out.
Or perhaps they'd hire engineers from elsewhere (or have some of their
own left) and manage to build something that lets them consolidate
power.
Afghanistan wasn't exactly rich remember...
--
"Hope is replaced by fear and dreams by survival, most of us get by."
Stuart Adamson 1958-2001
Mad Hamish
Hamish Laws
news...@iinet.net.au
Mad Hamish
wrote:
So you believe that Iraq had something to do with 9/11?
Leighton Jones
> Or perhaps they'd hire engineers from elsewhere (or have some of their
> own left) and manage to build something that lets them consolidate
> power.
>
No expat Engineers; means no non Iraqi engineers. Some of their own left, OK
let them have it, as I said and then watch their Oil industry crumble.
Cheers LJ.
D.F. Manno
JSBass...@yahoo.com (Jordan179) wrote:
> every terrorist we kill or capture in Iraq is a terrorist
> who will have no more chances to kill Americans anywhere else.
Not every Iraqi "we" kill or capture is a terrorist. I'd venture a guess
that the majority of them are not.
How many of them only started killing Americans when Americans invaded
and started killing them?
--
D.F. Manno
domm...@netscape.net
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." (Benjamin Franklin)
D.F. Manno
> Seriously -- if replacements start to be an issue, we need to raise
> military pay and engage in some serious recruiting. It's possible we
> can't win this war on the cheap -- but we have to win it.
>
> If we don't, something like 9/11 will happen to us every year or two.
Really? "We" haven't won the war yet, and it's been three years since
9/11. When was the second 9/11 that according to your post should have
happened by now?
D.F. Manno
technomaNge <ab...@microsoft.com> wrote:
> gr...@internet.charitydays.co.uk wrote:
>
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > At the current Body-Bag-Rate, the number will be 916 on Election Day.
> >
> > Nine hundred and sixteen.
> >
> > That is assuming that the current rate remains the same.
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> Anyone care to guess the political outcome if the number is 911?
A lot of people will play 9-1-1 as the daily number?
Duke of URL
news:dommanno-4DB1DA...@corp-radius.supernews.com...
> In article <K68kc.499$xm2.399@newsfe1-win>,
> "The Lord of the Tins" <lordof...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > These brave soldiers have been murdered by sneaky cowards.
>
> It's a war. Did you expect them not to fight back? Or did you expect
> them to fight back on the "coalition's" terms?
Hate to do it, but I have to agree with Manno.
A conquered or thoroughly invaded country's partisans have only one option
for fighting - guerilla warfare.
--
The One-and-only Holy MosesT
Duke of URL
> In article <374990d6.04043...@posting.google.com>,
> JSBass...@yahoo.com (Jordan179) wrote:
>
> > Seriously -- if replacements start to be an issue, we need to raise
> > military pay and engage in some serious recruiting. It's possible we
> > can't win this war on the cheap -- but we have to win it.
> >
> > If we don't, something like 9/11 will happen to us every year or two.
>
> Really? "We" haven't won the war yet, and it's been three years since
> 9/11. When was the second 9/11 that according to your post should have
> happened by now?
Well, there've been several major attempts stopped here in the USA. There've
been attempts stopped in other countries, too. There's also been one major
attack that succeeded beyond the Islaminazis' hopes: M11 in Spain.
Remember, it's not just the USA they're after, it's all of civilization.
Keith Morrison
>> Really? "We" haven't won the war yet, and it's been three years since
>> 9/11. When was the second 9/11 that according to your post should have
>> happened by now?
>
>Well, there've been several major attempts stopped here in the USA. There've
>been attempts stopped in other countries, too. There's also been one major
>attack that succeeded beyond the Islaminazis' hopes: M11 in Spain.
Yes. They succeeded in having the government, which was already
behind in the polls prior to the attack, tossed out of office in a
democratic election when evidence arose that the government had lied
and were attempting to use the attack for their own political gain.
Quite the victory.
--
Keith
Duke of URL
news:hkga905bkueh8kof8...@4ax.com...
Keith, you sound as though you're trying to be sarcastic. You don't see the
Islaminazis coercing the Spaniards into not only withdrawing from the fight
but even changing their government as a success? Sure looks like one to me.
Once again, the Moors will be ruling Spain.
Keith Morrison
>> >Well, there've been several major attempts stopped here in the USA.
>There've
>> >been attempts stopped in other countries, too. There's also been one
>major
>> >attack that succeeded beyond the Islaminazis' hopes: M11 in Spain.
>>
>> Yes. They succeeded in having the government, which was already
>> behind in the polls prior to the attack, tossed out of office in a
>> democratic election when evidence arose that the government had lied
>> and were attempting to use the attack for their own political gain.
>> Quite the victory.
>
>Keith, you sound as though you're trying to be sarcastic. You don't see the
>Islaminazis coercing the Spaniards into not only withdrawing from the fight
>but even changing their government as a success? Sure looks like one to me.
>Once again, the Moors will be ruling Spain.
Give me a break. The Spanish aren't withdrawing from the fight.
They're sending troops to Afghanistan. Remember that place? Base for
al Qaeda back in the day? Real connection for terrorism?
And none of the people picked up in connection with the bombing or
Iraqis or have shown any connections with Iraq. It looks like, to me,
that the Spanish are adjusting their available forces to be able to
combat terrorism directed at Spain instead of continuing to support
Operation Clusterfuck.
Considering that the withdrawal happened sooner then expected, perhaps
they'd seen the photos before they got out and bailed before they got
implicated as well. After all, the Spanish did sign up for the ICC so
they could be charged with torture and abuse of prisoners.
--
Keith
Duke of URL
> Considering that the withdrawal happened sooner then expected, perhaps
> they'd seen the photos before they got out and bailed before they got
> implicated as well. After all, the Spanish did sign up for the ICC so
> they could be charged with torture and abuse of prisoners.
Hmm... You know, I'dn't thought of that. You may be right; the scenario
makes sense.
David Loewe, Jr.
<kei...@polarnet.ca> wrote:
>"Duke of URL" <MacB...@kdsi.net> wrote:
>
>>> Really? "We" haven't won the war yet, and it's been three years since
>>> 9/11. When was the second 9/11 that according to your post should have
>>> happened by now?
>>
>>Well, there've been several major attempts stopped here in the USA. There've
>>been attempts stopped in other countries, too. There's also been one major
>>attack that succeeded beyond the Islaminazis' hopes: M11 in Spain.
>
>Yes. They succeeded in having the government, which was already
>behind in the polls prior to the attack,
?
Every account I've read had it that the government was slightly
*ahead* in the polls before the attack.
>tossed out of office in a
>democratic election when evidence arose that the government had lied
>and were attempting to use the attack for their own political gain.
>
>Quite the victory.
--
"Liberals are an easy target. They're so soft and furry, and they make
lovely pleading noises when trod on."
- Patrick Carroll
Keith Morrison
>>>Well, there've been several major attempts stopped here in the USA. There've
>>>been attempts stopped in other countries, too. There's also been one major
>>>attack that succeeded beyond the Islaminazis' hopes: M11 in Spain.
>>
>>Yes. They succeeded in having the government, which was already
>>behind in the polls prior to the attack,
>
>?
>
>Every account I've read had it that the government was slightly
>*ahead* in the polls before the attack.
I stand corrected. Aznar did have a 3% lead.
--
Keith
David Loewe, Jr.
You need to stand corrected again. Aznar was not running for
re-election.
--
"Knee-jerk liberals and all the certified saints of sanctified humanism
are quick to condemn this great and much-maligned Transylvanian
statesman."
- William F. Buckley, Jr. "The Wit and Wisdom of Vlad the Impaler"
Keith Morrison
>>>>>Well, there've been several major attempts stopped here in the USA. There've
>>>>>been attempts stopped in other countries, too. There's also been one major
>>>>>attack that succeeded beyond the Islaminazis' hopes: M11 in Spain.
>>>>
>>>>Yes. They succeeded in having the government, which was already
>>>>behind in the polls prior to the attack,
>>>
>>>?
>>>
>>>Every account I've read had it that the government was slightly
>>>*ahead* in the polls before the attack.
>>
>>I stand corrected. Aznar did have a 3% lead.
>
>You need to stand corrected again. Aznar was not running for
>re-election.
Sorry, Aznar's party. As is common in parliamentary democracies, we
often refer to the party by the leader's name and Aznar was still the
leader.
--
Keith
David Loewe, Jr.
It's the "Blair Party?!?" The "Sharon Party?" The "Howard Party?" The
"Martin Party?"
I've never heard any of these expressed like that. It's always Labour,
Likud, Liberal and Liberal. In fact, I can't think of any times I've
ever heard a party in a parliamentary system referred to in such a
manner - and I read English and Australian news sites fairly
extensively for an average American.
--
"Time passes and you must move on,
Half the distance takes you twice as long
So you keep on singing for the sake of the song
After the thrill is gone."
Don Henley & Glenn Frey
@nospamatomicrazor.com Dave O'Neill
"David Loewe, Jr." <dlo...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:tt5e90tv667haheq5...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 03 May 2004 14:33:10 -0600, Keith Morrison
> <kei...@polarnet.ca> wrote:
>
> >"David Loewe, Jr." <dlo...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> >
> >>>>>>Well, there've been several major attempts stopped here in the USA.
There've
> >>>>>>been attempts stopped in other countries, too. There's also been one
major
> >>>>>>attack that succeeded beyond the Islaminazis' hopes: M11 in Spain.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Yes. They succeeded in having the government, which was already
> >>>>>behind in the polls prior to the attack,
> >>>>
> >>>>?
> >>>>
> >>>>Every account I've read had it that the government was slightly
> >>>>*ahead* in the polls before the attack.
> >>>
> >>>I stand corrected. Aznar did have a 3% lead.
> >>
> >>You need to stand corrected again. Aznar was not running for
> >>re-election.
> >
> >Sorry, Aznar's party. As is common in parliamentary democracies, we
> >often refer to the party by the leader's name and Aznar was still the
> >leader.
>
> It's the "Blair Party?!?" The "Sharon Party?" The "Howard Party?" The
> "Martin Party?"
>
> I've never heard any of these expressed like that.
I have.
It's always Labour,
> Likud, Liberal and Liberal. In fact, I can't think of any times I've
> ever heard a party in a parliamentary system referred to in such a
> manner - and I read English and Australian news sites fairly
> extensively for an average American.
In common speech it certainly comes across that way. Certainly the issue
here in the UK at the moment is Blair going to seek re-election, not the
Labour party.
Dave
David Loewe, Jr.
Then this is obviously not crossing the culture gap. Because the
impression here when that is said that, of course, Blair is running
for re-election to his Sedgefield seat in Parliament (and perhaps his
spot as head of Labour).
Two countries separated by a common language and all that...
--
"The worst crime against working people is a company which fails to
operate at a profit."
- Samuel Gompers (1908)
Dave O'Neill
> >In common speech it certainly comes across that way. Certainly the issue
> >here in the UK at the moment is Blair going to seek re-election, not the
> >Labour party.
>
> Then this is obviously not crossing the culture gap. Because the
> impression here when that is said that, of course, Blair is running
> for re-election to his Sedgefield seat in Parliament (and perhaps his
> spot as head of Labour).
In reality that is the case, of course. In practise, people talked
about Thatcher and not the Conservatives come election time. Likewise
they are talking about Blair now. i.e. the slogan the Conservatives
are coming up with of Vote Blair, Get Brown...
While the system is the person holding the most seats and leading the
majority party is PM - the campaign and the public perception is more
to do with the personality of the leaders. i.e. Neil Kinnock, no
matter what he did, was a shoe in for his own seat, but the public
were not quite ready for him to run a country. Whereas honest old
John Major was... Of course, that possibly wasn't the outcome the
Tories wanted.
David Loewe, Jr.
wrote:
I just can't imagine why anyone would like a system where you might
have to vote for some git you despise in order to get the leader you
want or vote against the best candidate for representative so that the
stupid git heading up his party doesn't become the leader.
Feh...
>
>> Two countries separated by a common language and all that...
--
"I still see her standing by the water
Standing there lookin' out to sea
And is she waiting there for me?
On the beach where we used to run..."
Jimmy Webb
@nospamatomicrazor.com Dave O'Neill
It's pretty common at national elections, the reality is most people have
little contact with their MP. A *good* constituency MP can buck the trend
but I'd say that's the exception rather than the rule.
Of course, for local issues things are much more fluid, so people tend to
vote locally for representatives they know - so, for example, my mother has
constantly been elected as a local councillor even in areas where she has
the opposite politics to the way the area normally votes, simply because of
her local profile and her reputation.
That's not unusual in local elections, but highly atypical for national
government where people tend to vote on party political and "leader" lines
regardless of who is actually standing in their area.
Dave
David Loewe, Jr.
If Mr. Morrison is still reading this thread, *THIS* is what's really
messed up about Parliaments.
--
"Even when uttered by Democrats, middle class often sounds like a
mealymouthed way of saying, Us, and not them, where them includes poor
people, snake handlers and those with pierced tongues."
- Barbara Ehrenreich
Steinn Sigurdsson
> >That's not unusual in local elections, but highly atypical for national
> >government where people tend to vote on party political and "leader" lines
> >regardless of who is actually standing in their area.
> If Mr. Morrison is still reading this thread, *THIS* is what's really
> messed up about Parliaments.
Common practise in US Congressional elections too;
locally disliked reps often stand on a platform of "support the President
and elect a majority of his party" - both in the elections and
in the primaries.
Keith Morrison
>>> I just can't imagine why anyone would like a system where you might
>>> have to vote for some git you despise in order to get the leader you
>>> want or vote against the best candidate for representative so that the
>>> stupid git heading up his party doesn't become the leader.
>>
>>It's pretty common at national elections, the reality is most people have
>>little contact with their MP. A *good* constituency MP can buck the trend
>>but I'd say that's the exception rather than the rule.
>>
>>Of course, for local issues things are much more fluid, so people tend to
>>vote locally for representatives they know - so, for example, my mother has
>>constantly been elected as a local councillor even in areas where she has
>>the opposite politics to the way the area normally votes, simply because of
>>her local profile and her reputation.
>>
>>That's not unusual in local elections, but highly atypical for national
>>government where people tend to vote on party political and "leader" lines
>>regardless of who is actually standing in their area.
>
>If Mr. Morrison is still reading this thread, *THIS* is what's really
>messed up about Parliaments.
It's okay. Some of us think that a system where the chief executive
can hide from criticism in his own little world and apparently be
unaware of what's happening to be incredibly stupid as well.
At least our chief executives are forced to defend themselves, in
public, against openly hostile criticism.
--
Keith
@nospamatomicrazor.com Dave O'Neill
Really?
I'd be surprised if it were really all that different in the US. After all,
you guys actually have registered voters with a political preference.
I prefer the PM/Leader/Whatever having to stand up in public and answer
questions from the members weekly myself.
Dave
@nospamatomicrazor.com Dave O'Neill
Here here.
stePH
> "Keith Morrison" <kei...@polarnet.ca> wrote in message
> news:vvtk90h4sg6uu9nrd...@4ax.com...
>
>>At least our chief executives are forced to defend themselves, in
>>public, against openly hostile criticism.
>
>
> Here here.
>
"Hear, hear."
stePH
--
"A lion will exert himself to the utmost, even when entering the tiger's
den to throw baby rabbits off a cliff!" -- Moroboshi Ataru
Dave O'Neill
> Dave O'Neill wrote:
>
> > "Keith Morrison" <kei...@polarnet.ca> wrote in message
> > news:vvtk90h4sg6uu9nrd...@4ax.com...
> >
> >>At least our chief executives are forced to defend themselves, in
> >>public, against openly hostile criticism.
> >
> >
> > Here here.
> >
>
> "Hear, hear."
>
> stePH
D'oh.
You know I really ought to read what I type before I press send.
Dave
how...@brazee.net
On 7-May-2004, fish...@conservatory.com (james) wrote:
> >The safer the havens terrorists can find, the greater their attack
> >rate and capability.
>
>
> It is comforting to assume that the terrorists need significant amounts
> of money or organization to do their mayhem, but that belief may not
> reflect the reality. What the 9/11 hijackers had was secrecy -- more
> secrecy than most national intelligence or military organizations seem
> to ever be able to keep.
And they didn't have safe havens. Safe havens isn't high on the list of
priorities of suicide bombers.
Jordan179
> In article <374990d6.04043...@posting.google.com>,
> JSBass...@yahoo.com (Jordan179) wrote:
>
> > Seriously -- if replacements start to be an issue, we need to raise
> > military pay and engage in some serious recruiting. It's possible we
> > can't win this war on the cheap -- but we have to win it.
> >
> > If we don't, something like 9/11 will happen to us every year or two.
>
> 9/11. When was the second 9/11 that according to your post should have
> happened by now?
I'm making the assumption that having their bases captured, and being
hunted like dogs in every country on Earth is more than a little
degrading Al Qaeda's offensive capability. Are you assuming that it
isn't even slowing them down?
If we lose the war, even if we claim a victory and go home, Al Qaeda
will probably have a safe haven in Iraq, at least -- and other
Terrorist States may well be emboldened by our back-down to resume
basing anti-American Terrorists. Under those conditions, we will
probably see annual 9/11-like incidents.
Sincerely Yours,
Jordan
Wayne Throop
: I'm making the assumption that having their bases captured, and being
: hunted like dogs in every country on Earth is more than a little
: degrading Al Qaeda's offensive capability.
Sadly, they can disguise themselves more effectively than most dogs can.
Brings up the issue of use of profiling. Thorny issue.
Wayne Throop thr...@sheol.org http://sheol.org/throopw
D.F. Manno
JSBass...@yahoo.com (Jordan179) wrote:
> "D.F. Manno" <domm...@netscape.net> wrote in message
>
> > JSBass...@yahoo.com (Jordan179) wrote:
> >
> > > If we don't, something like 9/11 will happen to us every year or two.
> >
> > Really? "We" haven't won the war yet, and it's been three years since
> > 9/11. When was the second 9/11 that according to your post should have
> > happened by now?
>
> I'm making the assumption that having their bases captured, and being
> hunted like dogs in every country on Earth is more than a little
> degrading Al Qaeda's offensive capability. Are you assuming that it
> isn't even slowing them down?
Madrid.
--
D.F. Manno
domm...@netscape.net
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." (Benjamin Franklin)
Lee DeRaud
<domm...@netscape.net> wrote:
>In article <374990d6.04050...@posting.google.com>,
> JSBass...@yahoo.com (Jordan179) wrote:
>
>> "D.F. Manno" <domm...@netscape.net> wrote in message
>>
>> > JSBass...@yahoo.com (Jordan179) wrote:
>> >
>> > > If we don't, something like 9/11 will happen to us every year or two.
>> >
>> > Really? "We" haven't won the war yet, and it's been three years since
>> > 9/11. When was the second 9/11 that according to your post should have
>> > happened by now?
>>
>> I'm making the assumption that having their bases captured, and being
>> hunted like dogs in every country on Earth is more than a little
>> degrading Al Qaeda's offensive capability. Are you assuming that it
>> isn't even slowing them down?
>
>Madrid.
Ok, in your last two posts, you said:
1. "When was the second 9/11 that according to your post should have
happened by now?"
2. "Madrid"
If you're going to refute your own point, why don't you do it in the
same post and save the bandwidth?
Lee
Keith Morrison
>>> > If we don't, something like 9/11 will happen to us every year or two.
>>>
>>> Unlikely every year or two, but something like is likely regardless of what
>>> you do.
>>
>>The safer the havens terrorists can find, the greater their attack
>>rate and capability.
>
>It is comforting to assume that the terrorists need significant amounts
>of money or organization to do their mayhem, but that belief may not
>reflect the reality. What the 9/11 hijackers had was secrecy -- more
>secrecy than most national intelligence or military organizations seem
>to ever be able to keep.
Look at the terrorist attacks of the last few years: September 11th
required about two dozen guys and a few thousand dollars (not counting
their living expenses, just the flight schools and their
transportation). The USS Cole, a rubber dinghy, outboard and
explosives. Khobar Towers, Oklahoma City, the 1993 WTC attacks,
common vehicles and some explosives. Madrid this year, commercially
available explosives and some cell phones.
None of them required a heck of a lot of logistical support. The only
"safe havens" the terrorists in question needed was staying below the
radar of the country where they were doing their attack (note that 3
of the ones I mentioned, that "haven" was the US itself).
Modern international terrorism as displayed by al Qaeda isn't an
insurgency where they're operating out of a fixed location. For all
the talk about training camps, the actual training required to carry
out the big attacks in the last decade or so doesn't require a camp:
it needs indoctrination, which can be done practically anywhere, and
it needs a minor amount of specialized training (setting up your bomb)
that can be done again almost anywhere. Those films of the masked
terrorist running the obstacle courses with their AKs make good
theatre, but I think scenes like that had more to do with tradition
from the Soviet occupation (where you had to train to fight as
something of an irregular force) and training to act as combat teams
inside Afghanistan itself.
The US and other countries are making the same mistake a lot of police
departments do. "Oh, we clean out this slum and crime will stop."
That's not the way it works. Terrorism is a *tactic*, not an ideology
or a specific movement, and a "war on terrorism" is as likely to be
won as a "war on crime" or a "war on drugs". The best you can do is
reduce the amount of terrorism, like that of crime, to levels that a
society is willing to accept before the act of reduction becomes more
intolerable than the crime itself.
Reducing crime is a good thing. Do you want GPS trackers on everyone
with constant video surveillance 24/7/365, or other similar drastic
measures, as the trade off to eliminate it? I don't, which means that
I have to accept that sometimes crimes are going to happen, maybe to
me. I'm willing to live with that because reducing crime to nothing
is not worth losing my personal liberty or privacy.
The problem with thinking of it as a war is that you get trapped in a
mindset of "Oh, if I can just take out their capital/factories/head of
state, we can declare victory and go home." So you look for that
specific target, and when that doesn't stop the problem, you go
looking for another target, and another, and another. And all the
while you may be creating more problems than when you started.
There's more to stopping crime than just catching criminals. There's
more to stopping terrorism than killing terrorists and blowing the
crap out of places you think are supporting them.
--
Keith
David Loewe, Jr.
atomicrazor . com> wrote:
>"David Loewe, Jr." <dlo...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>news:j53k90lm8u2qtopcc...@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 05 May 2004 18:40:10 GMT, "Dave O'Neill" <dave @ NOSPAM
>> atomicrazor . com> wrote:
>
>> >Of course, for local issues things are much more fluid, so people tend to
>> >vote locally for representatives they know - so, for example, my mother
>> >has constantly been elected as a local councillor even in areas where she
>> >has the opposite politics to the way the area normally votes, simply
>> >because of her local profile and her reputation.
>> >
>> >That's not unusual in local elections, but highly atypical for national
>> >government where people tend to vote on party political and "leader"
>> >lines regardless of who is actually standing in their area.
>>
>> If Mr. Morrison is still reading this thread, *THIS* is what's really
>> messed up about Parliaments.
>
>Really?
>
>I'd be surprised if it were really all that different in the US. After all,
>you guys actually have registered voters with a political preference.
And, like yours truly, we have registered voters with *no* political
preference.
>
>I prefer the PM/Leader/Whatever having to stand up in public and answer
>questions from the members weekly myself.
Which is not a *requirement* of the Parliamentary system. It is also a
laughable circus everytime I've tuned in on CSPAN to watch the British
Commons version. I really don't want wingnuts like Maxine Waters
asking the President questions directly.
--
"When PETA starts trying to toss red paint on motorcycle riders
wearing leather jackets, things will get more interesting (and I hope
someone's there with a camera)."
- James Jones
@nospamatomicrazor.com Dave O'Neill
Really? I find even "wingnuts" sometimes ask really important questions.
Dave
David Loewe, Jr.
atomicrazor . com> wrote:
What? No pithy comeback?
>> >
>> >I prefer the PM/Leader/Whatever having to stand up in public and answer
>> >questions from the members weekly myself.
>>
>> Which is not a *requirement* of the Parliamentary system. It is also a
>> laughable circus everytime I've tuned in on CSPAN to watch the British
>> Commons version. I really don't want wingnuts like Maxine Waters
>> asking the President questions directly.
>
>Really? I find even "wingnuts" sometimes ask really important questions.
And a stopped clock is right twice a day.
--
"Define 'irony' - Bunch of idiots dancing on a plane to a song
made famous by a band that died in a plane crash."
Garland Greene (Steve Buscemi) - Con Air
Lee DeRaud
atomicrazor . com> wrote:
>"David Loewe, Jr." <dlo...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>news:jk4m90p0t4ol6j2mb...@4ax.com...
>
>> I really don't want wingnuts like Maxine Waters
>> asking the President questions directly.
>
>Really? I find even "wingnuts" sometimes ask really important questions.
The problem is, they rarely bother to listen to the answers.
Lee
@nospamatomicrazor.com Dave O'Neill
> On Sun, 09 May 2004 16:05:33 GMT, "Dave O'Neill" <dave @ NOSPAM
> atomicrazor . com> wrote:
> >> And, like yours truly, we have registered voters with *no* political
> >> preference.
>
> What? No pithy comeback?
Did you want one.
I personally find the idea of "registered voters" to be really odd, but
that's possibly just me.
Everybody is a voter - recording your preference in advance, regardless of
what it is seems to go against the grain.
> >> >
> >> >I prefer the PM/Leader/Whatever having to stand up in public and
answer
> >> >questions from the members weekly myself.
> >>
> >> Which is not a *requirement* of the Parliamentary system. It is also a
> >> laughable circus everytime I've tuned in on CSPAN to watch the British
> >> Commons version. I really don't want wingnuts like Maxine Waters
> >> asking the President questions directly.
> >
> >Really? I find even "wingnuts" sometimes ask really important questions.
>
> And a stopped clock is right twice a day.
Pithy but in this context I think inaccurate.
People seem to have a problem with confrontation and hard arguments. A
leader should deal with all angles even those of the wingnuts. Hmmm...
having said that a "wingnut" is also a matter of perspective.
Dave
@nospamatomicrazor.com Dave O'Neill
"Lee DeRaud" <lee.d...@adelphia.net> wrote in message
news:61rs90pqhol3n2s8b...@4ax.com...
True, but that's not the issue here. Having a PM have to answer them
publically is something I actually think is quite important in a democratic
government.
Dave
Lee DeRaud
atomicrazor . com> wrote:
>"David Loewe, Jr." <dlo...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>news:apns905b6mvb71msg...@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 09 May 2004 16:05:33 GMT, "Dave O'Neill" <dave @ NOSPAM
>> atomicrazor . com> wrote:
>
>> >> And, like yours truly, we have registered voters with *no* political
>> >> preference.
>>
>> What? No pithy comeback?
>
>Did you want one.
>
>I personally find the idea of "registered voters" to be really odd, but
>that's possibly just me.
>
>Everybody is a voter - recording your preference in advance, regardless of
>what it is seems to go against the grain.
So, you don't want *any* say in the candidates the party of your
preference puts on the ballot? (Hint: the *only* thing registration
does is determine which party's primary you participate in...some
places it doesn't even do *that*. Admittedly it also determines which
party's organization you get spammed by.)
Lee
Jordan179
> : JSBass...@yahoo.com (Jordan179)
> : I'm making the assumption that having their bases captured, and being
> : hunted like dogs in every country on Earth is more than a little
> : degrading Al Qaeda's offensive capability.
>
> Sadly, they can disguise themselves more effectively than most dogs can.
> Brings up the issue of use of profiling. Thorny issue.
It wouldn't be after a second 9/11.
Incidentally, one of the reasons I'm glad that we're fighting them
overseas rather than at home is that we'd get _really_ paranoid and
toss some of our civil liberties aside if they were successfully
hitting us here.
Sincerely Yours,
Jordan
Jordan179
> In article <374990d6.04050...@posting.google.com>,
> JSBass...@yahoo.com (Jordan179) wrote:
>
> > "D.F. Manno" <domm...@netscape.net> wrote in message
> >
> > > JSBass...@yahoo.com (Jordan179) wrote:
> > >
> > > > If we don't, something like 9/11 will happen to us every year or two.
> > >
> > > Really? "We" haven't won the war yet, and it's been three years since
> > > 9/11. When was the second 9/11 that according to your post should have
> > > happened by now?
> >
> > I'm making the assumption that having their bases captured, and being
> > hunted like dogs in every country on Earth is more than a little
> > degrading Al Qaeda's offensive capability. Are you assuming that it
> > isn't even slowing them down?
>
> Madrid.
But by your own admission in the earlier statement, the Madrid bombing
wasn't on the scale of 9/11, and it wasn't carried out in or against
America. It takes a lot less effort to set off a car-bomb than it
does to hijack four jetliners and try to crash them into strategic
targets.
Again, are you assuming that our campaign isn't even slowing al-Qaeda
down? "Madrid" was hardly an answer, and at that it was contradictory
to your earlier post.
Sincerely Yours,
Jordan
Wayne Throop
::: being hunted like dogs in every country on Earth is more than a
::: little degrading Al Qaeda's offensive capability.
:: Sadly, they can disguise themselves more effectively than most dogs can.
:: Brings up the issue of use of profiling. Thorny issue.
: JSBass...@yahoo.com (Jordan179)
: It wouldn't be after a second 9/11.
I wouldn't count falling off the other side of the tightrope as
an instance of the thorny issue of ballancing on it being solved.
Which is to say, I think it might all to easily simply be a different
problem instead of being de-thorned. And this ease of overshoot
is one thing that makes it thorny.
MMV.
David Loewe, Jr.
Actually, he's gotten the terminology quite wrong. And, he's gotten it
wrong in spite of a pretty massive clue I laid out for him.
Registration is the term for the process for determining your
*eligibility* to vote (Are you old enough to vote? Are you a citizen?)
and determining *where* (as in what precinct) you are to vote (Where
do you live?).
As you say, the only time you have to state a party preference is for
the purpose of determining which Primary ballot you will be voting on
and most states (like mine) now have open primaries.
I have no preference listed with my state (which was the clue I
referred to earlier). During the Presidential Primary this year I
voted in the Democratic Party Primary, even though if I had to pick a
party affiliation it would be Republican.
--
"I wouldn't recommend sex, drugs or insanity for everyone, but they've
always worked for me."
- Hunter S. Thompson
Steinn Sigurdsson
> fish...@conservatory.com (james) wrote:
> >>> > If we don't, something like 9/11 will happen to us every year or two.
> >>> Unlikely every year or two, but something like is likely regardless of what
> >>> you do.
> >>The safer the havens terrorists can find, the greater their attack
> >>rate and capability.
> >It is comforting to assume that the terrorists need significant amounts
> >of money or organization to do their mayhem, but that belief may not
> >reflect the reality. What the 9/11 hijackers had was secrecy -- more
> >secrecy than most national intelligence or military organizations seem
> >to ever be able to keep.
...
> The US and other countries are making the same mistake a lot of police
> departments do. "Oh, we clean out this slum and crime will stop."
> That's not the way it works. Terrorism is a *tactic*, not an ideology
> or a specific movement, and a "war on terrorism" is as likely to be
> won as a "war on crime" or a "war on drugs". The best you can do is
> reduce the amount of terrorism, like that of crime, to levels that a
> society is willing to accept before the act of reduction becomes more
> intolerable than the crime itself.
...
It seems clear that there are aQ cells in place in several western countries
and that police are varyingly effective in rooting them out; why is
an interesting question.
Why they are not striking is also an interesting question; they could
have dissolved, they could be all talk and not action without central
command, they could be waiting for maximum political impact, with
several obvious opportunities coming up.
For just how good aQ is, we should see if anything happens in Norway...
However, let us contemplate a Schilling analysis (let us assume aQ is
supercompetent - and BTW if Schilling were president, or even DoD head
I'd be a lot more comfortable about the world, I don't believe the
real leaders there have half that level of introspection or foresight...):
what is the worst aQ could do to the US - naively that would be
to disrupt the Nov election and deliver a major economic and moral
blow (some obvious high value multiple targets); however a worse
scenario could be if they did nothing, and then arranged a leak
after the election that $election-winner had cut a deal with them;
it would be relatively easy to generate relevant paperwork in advance
and then let is existence be accidentally leaked to enough people-who-care
for the story to break. Absolute lose-lose scenario, admitting there
was any contact is bad, denying it is bad, covering it up is bad, letting
it go public is bad.
Of course no deal need exist, merely the perception that there had been one.
(Actually cutting a deal would be even worse, but that is beyond aQ abilities
to arrange)
@nospamatomicrazor.com Dave O'Neill
> On Sun, 09 May 2004 19:34:34 GMT, "Dave O'Neill" <dave @ NOSPAM
> atomicrazor . com> wrote:
>
> >"David Loewe, Jr." <dlo...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> >news:apns905b6mvb71msg...@4ax.com...
> >> On Sun, 09 May 2004 16:05:33 GMT, "Dave O'Neill" <dave @ NOSPAM
> >> atomicrazor . com> wrote:
> >
> >> >> And, like yours truly, we have registered voters with *no* political
> >> >> preference.
> >>
> >> What? No pithy comeback?
> >
> >Did you want one.
> >
> >I personally find the idea of "registered voters" to be really odd, but
> >that's possibly just me.
> >
> >Everybody is a voter - recording your preference in advance, regardless
of
> >what it is seems to go against the grain.
>
> So, you don't want *any* say in the candidates the party of your
> preference puts on the ballot?
If I am a party member then within the context of the system the party
decides then fine, maybe - which is what the major parties in the UK use for
party leader, do I want to be bothered with local candidates? No, not
really. If I disagree, I'll not be voting for them.
Dave
@nospamatomicrazor.com Dave O'Neill
Really?
> Registration is the term for the process for determining your
> *eligibility* to vote (Are you old enough to vote? Are you a citizen?)
> and determining *where* (as in what precinct) you are to vote (Where
> do you live?).
I fill in a form every year that the council send to me stating that I'm a
citizen over 18 living at the house I live in. That's all I need to do.
Actually, there isn't even a verfiication process.
> As you say, the only time you have to state a party preference is for
> the purpose of determining which Primary ballot you will be voting on
> and most states (like mine) now have open primaries.
As we don't have primary ballots, it seems rather bizzare to me.
> I have no preference listed with my state (which was the clue I
> referred to earlier). During the Presidential Primary this year I
> voted in the Democratic Party Primary, even though if I had to pick a
> party affiliation it would be Republican.
My clue was in not really seeing the need to list your preference on your
registration. Everybody in the UK is "no preference", it's up the parties
to work out who you support.
I like it that way.
Dave
David Loewe, Jr.
atomicrazor . com> wrote:
Really.
>
>> Registration is the term for the process for determining your
>> *eligibility* to vote (Are you old enough to vote? Are you a citizen?)
>> and determining *where* (as in what precinct) you are to vote (Where
>> do you live?).
>
>I fill in a form every year that the council send to me stating that I'm a
>citizen over 18 living at the house I live in.
Seems intrusive.
I register and I'm registered there until I tell them otherwise
(usually by registering somewhere else) or they get some other
persuasive evidence that I've moved.
>That's all I need to do.
>Actually, there isn't even a verfiication process.
There may be one initially (for the age determination), but I'm long
past that and don't really remember. On all else, they take your word
for it.
>
>> As you say, the only time you have to state a party preference is for
>> the purpose of determining which Primary ballot you will be voting on
>> and most states (like mine) now have open primaries.
>
>As we don't have primary ballots, it seems rather bizzare to me.
>
>> I have no preference listed with my state (which was the clue I
>> referred to earlier). During the Presidential Primary this year I
>> voted in the Democratic Party Primary, even though if I had to pick a
>> party affiliation it would be Republican.
>
>My clue was in not really seeing the need to list your preference on your
>registration.
There is no need. There is no such listing on my voter registration.
Capiche?
>Everybody in the UK is "no preference", it's up the parties to work out
>who you support.
>
>I like it that way.
And I like primaries.
--
"Try to learn something about everything and everything about
something."
- T.H. Huxley
Lee DeRaud
atomicrazor . com> wrote:
>"Lee DeRaud" <lee.d...@adelphia.net> wrote in message
>news:jj6t905ilvm8gjtdo...@4ax.com...
>> So, you don't want *any* say in the candidates the party of your
>> preference puts on the ballot?
>
>If I am a party member then within the context of the system the party
>decides then fine, maybe - which is what the major parties in the UK use for
>party leader, do I want to be bothered with local candidates? No, not
>really. If I disagree, I'll not be voting for them.
So that's a "no", then?
Lee
Dave O'Neill
Sorry, I really didn't see any clues massive or otherwise. You seem
to be assuming we have perfect knwoledge of each others system.
> >> Registration is the term for the process for determining your
> >> *eligibility* to vote (Are you old enough to vote? Are you a citizen?)
> >> and determining *where* (as in what precinct) you are to vote (Where
> >> do you live?).
> >
> >I fill in a form every year that the council send to me stating that I'm a
> >citizen over 18 living at the house I live in.
>
> Seems intrusive.
>
> I register and I'm registered there until I tell them otherwise
> (usually by registering somewhere else) or they get some other
> persuasive evidence that I've moved.
Technically that is what happens in the UK, but the key is to ensure
people have the chance to be registered at their address.
You need a polling card to be eligable to vote here which is sent to
you address, this system makes sure that you have as much chance of
being able to vote as possible.
> >That's all I need to do.
> >Actually, there isn't even a verfiication process.
>
> There may be one initially (for the age determination), but I'm long
> past that and don't really remember. On all else, they take your word
> for it.
> >
> >> As you say, the only time you have to state a party preference is for
> >> the purpose of determining which Primary ballot you will be voting on
> >> and most states (like mine) now have open primaries.
> >
> >As we don't have primary ballots, it seems rather bizzare to me.
> >
> >> I have no preference listed with my state (which was the clue I
> >> referred to earlier). During the Presidential Primary this year I
> >> voted in the Democratic Party Primary, even though if I had to pick a
> >> party affiliation it would be Republican.
> >
> >My clue was in not really seeing the need to list your preference on your
> >registration.
>
> There is no need. There is no such listing on my voter registration.
>
> Capiche?
In a word, no.
You have no preference listed on your voter registration form?
BUt there is an option to list voter registration? Or not?
If you list no option are you automatically listed as independant?
> >Everybody in the UK is "no preference", it's up the parties to work out
> >who you support.
> >
> >I like it that way.
>
> And I like primaries.
Un-necessary in our system.
Dave O'Neill
Just explaining my position.
Dave
Michael Stemper
>"David Loewe, Jr." <dlo...@mindspring.com> wrote in message news:u03u90dagaatqdodt...@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 09 May 2004 13:58:58 -0700, Lee DeRaud <lee.d...@adelphia.net> wrote:
>> >On Sun, 09 May 2004 19:34:34 GMT, "Dave O'Neill" <dave @ NOSPAM atomicrazor . com> wrote:
>> >>I personally find the idea of "registered voters" to be really odd,
You do? Then you must find it really odd to have to renew your voter
registration every year.
>> >>Everybody is a voter -
What if they don't respond to the form the council sends out every year?
>> >> recording your preference in advance, regardless of
>> >>what it is seems to go against the grain.
I've heard of that being done, but it's not universal. Certainly doesn't
happen in Minnesota or Wisconsin, which are the two states in which I've
been a voter.
>> Registration is the term for the process for determining your
>> *eligibility* to vote (Are you old enough to vote? Are you a citizen?)
>> and determining *where* (as in what precinct) you are to vote (Where
>> do you live?).
>
>I fill in a form every year that the council send to me stating that I'm a
>citizen over 18 living at the house I live in. That's all I need to do.
That's registration. However, in the U.S. (at least the parts in which
I've lived), you register once. It's good until you move; then you
register in whatever new town or city you've moved to (or precinct, if
you've moved within a large city).
>Actually, there isn't even a verfiication process.
Isn't that the purpose of sending out the form annually? To verify
that you're still living there?
>> I have no preference listed with my state (which was the clue I
>> referred to earlier). During the Presidential Primary this year I
>> voted in the Democratic Party Primary, even though if I had to pick a
>> party affiliation it would be Republican.
>
>My clue was in not really seeing the need to list your preference on your
>registration.
Of the states in which I have been a voter, 0% have such a preference listing.
--
Michael F. Stemper
#include <Standard_Disclaimer>
"Writing about jazz is like dancing about architecture" - Thelonious Monk
Michael Stemper
>"David Loewe, Jr." <dlo...@mindspring.com> wrote in message news:<uuov905d919k38teh...@4ax.com>...
>Sorry, I really didn't see any clues massive or otherwise. You seem
>to be assuming we have perfect knwoledge of each others system.
Well, maybe these points will help:
1. Voter registration is by state. Each state has its own rules,
regulations, and processes, which have to meet minimum Federal
standards for non-discrimination, and so on.
2. Some states have this party declaration thing that you're
discussing. Others do not.
>> >> Registration is the term for the process for determining your
>> >> *eligibility* to vote (Are you old enough to vote? Are you a citizen?)
>> >> and determining *where* (as in what precinct) you are to vote (Where
>> >> do you live?).
>> >
>> >I fill in a form every year that the council send to me stating that I'm a
>> >citizen over 18 living at the house I live in.
>> I register and I'm registered there until I tell them otherwise
>> (usually by registering somewhere else) or they get some other
>> persuasive evidence that I've moved.
>
>Technically that is what happens in the UK, but the key is to ensure
>people have the chance to be registered at their address.
So your voter registration is basically like ours, except that a voter
in the UK doesn't need to take any initiative to register. When I
registered where I currently live (1987), I had to actually physically
present myself at the town hall. OTOH, I haven't had to to anything
to maintain my registration since (except vote), so it's probably a
horse apiece.
>You need a polling card to be eligable to vote here which is sent to
No "polling cards" (in at least Wisconsin or Minnesota). However, if
the election judge doesn't recognize you, you might be asked to show
identification of some sort. I don't recall having been asked for any
in many years.
>> >My clue was in not really seeing the need to list your preference on your
>> >registration.
>>
>> There is no need. There is no such listing on my voter registration.
>>
>> Capiche?
>
>In a word, no.
>
>You have no preference listed on your voter registration form?
No. None. No party affiliation listed. No place on the form to do so.
I'm not registered as "Republican" or "Democrat" or "Independence" or
"Green" or "Libertarian" or "Silly" or "no preference". This concept
does not exist in either of the two states in which I've been a
registered voter.
>BUt there is an option to list voter registration? Or not?
Do you mean "list party affiliation"? If so, the answer is "no". I'm
not sure why you find it so hard to grasp that for some of us, it's
just like your system.
>If you list no option are you automatically listed as independant?
No, because there's no place to do such a thing. Really.
--
Michael F. Stemper
#include <Standard_Disclaimer>
This message contains at least 95% recycled bytes.
@nospamatomicrazor.com Dave O'Neill
"Michael Stemper" <mste...@siemens-emis.com> wrote in message
news:200405111339...@mickey.empros.com...
The thread started with a discussion of "registered" preferences which I
just find bizzare.
> >If you list no option are you automatically listed as independant?
>
> No, because there's no place to do such a thing. Really.
So could we go over this "registered independant" thing then?
Sorry if this sounds awfully dense but like many threaded discussions its
getting a little confused.
Dave
@nospamatomicrazor.com Dave O'Neill
> In article <S6Qnc.7722$XT2.73...@news-text.cableinet.net>, Dave O'Neill
writes:
> >"David Loewe, Jr." <dlo...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:u03u90dagaatqdodt...@4ax.com...
> >> On Sun, 09 May 2004 13:58:58 -0700, Lee DeRaud
<lee.d...@adelphia.net> wrote:
> >> >On Sun, 09 May 2004 19:34:34 GMT, "Dave O'Neill" <dave @ NOSPAM
atomicrazor . com> wrote:
>
> >> >>I personally find the idea of "registered voters" to be really odd,
>
> You do? Then you must find it really odd to have to renew your voter
> registration every year.
I was referring to "registered" democrats and republicans.
> >> >>Everybody is a voter -
>
> What if they don't respond to the form the council sends out every year?
The council apparently use the previous years list for a year and then
remove. Some people do "vanish" from time to time as I assume they do in
the US.
Again, my confusion was about the idea of "registered party members" - the
terminology I was using was what I thought was correct.
> >> >> recording your preference in advance, regardless of
> >> >>what it is seems to go against the grain.
>
> I've heard of that being done, but it's not universal. Certainly doesn't
> happen in Minnesota or Wisconsin, which are the two states in which I've
> been a voter.
>
> >> Registration is the term for the process for determining your
> >> *eligibility* to vote (Are you old enough to vote? Are you a citizen?)
> >> and determining *where* (as in what precinct) you are to vote (Where
> >> do you live?).
> >
> >I fill in a form every year that the council send to me stating that I'm
a
> >citizen over 18 living at the house I live in. That's all I need to do.
>
> That's registration. However, in the U.S. (at least the parts in which
> I've lived), you register once. It's good until you move; then you
> register in whatever new town or city you've moved to (or precinct, if
> you've moved within a large city).
>
> >Actually, there isn't even a verfiication process.
>
> Isn't that the purpose of sending out the form annually? To verify
> that you're still living there?
Pretty much. The lists are also used by credit reference agencies to verify
that you live where you say you do, so its in your own interest to register
to vote.
Jordan179
"Solved?"
Oh, no, you misunderstood me. A second 9/11 would bring a wave of
popular overreaction which would "solve" the "profiling problem" by
going too far in the other direction: by creating a political
groundswell to ride roughshod over the rights of innocent Muslims and
persons of Middle Eastern dissent. Don't you realize that the only
reason why this hasn't already happened is that George W. Bush risked
his own political capital to damp it down, and that the American
public is satisfied that we're fighting the problem overseas?
If we pulled out of the "war on terror," and the Terrorists kept on
fighting (which is probable) the pressure to do _anything_
domestically possible to keep the Mideast's problems out of America
would be overwhelming -- any elected official who resisted or even
didn't appear to go along with it would be an ex-official come next
election. It would make the Red Scares of 1918-22 and 1948-53 look
like nothing by comparison -- after all, the Bolsheviks never did
worse than detonate a _single_ and small carbomb over here.
Sincerely Yours,
Jordan
David Loewe, Jr.
wrote:
?
If I did, why would I be giving you that clue?
>
>> >> Registration is the term for the process for determining your
>> >> *eligibility* to vote (Are you old enough to vote? Are you a citizen?)
>> >> and determining *where* (as in what precinct) you are to vote (Where
>> >> do you live?).
>> >
>> >I fill in a form every year that the council send to me stating that I'm a
>> >citizen over 18 living at the house I live in.
>>
>> Seems intrusive.
>>
>> I register and I'm registered there until I tell them otherwise
>> (usually by registering somewhere else) or they get some other
>> persuasive evidence that I've moved.
>
>Technically that is what happens in the UK, but the key is to ensure
>people have the chance to be registered at their address.
>
>You need a polling card to be eligable to vote here which is sent to
>you address, this system makes sure that you have as much chance of
>being able to vote as possible.
Here you need an ID (most people show their Drivers License) and you
need to be entered on the rolls.
>
>> >That's all I need to do.
>> >Actually, there isn't even a verfiication process.
>>
>> There may be one initially (for the age determination), but I'm long
>> past that and don't really remember. On all else, they take your word
>> for it.
>> >
>> >> As you say, the only time you have to state a party preference is for
>> >> the purpose of determining which Primary ballot you will be voting on
>> >> and most states (like mine) now have open primaries.
>> >
>> >As we don't have primary ballots, it seems rather bizzare to me.
>> >
>> >> I have no preference listed with my state (which was the clue I
>> >> referred to earlier). During the Presidential Primary this year I
>> >> voted in the Democratic Party Primary, even though if I had to pick a
>> >> party affiliation it would be Republican.
>> >
>> >My clue was in not really seeing the need to list your preference on your
>> >registration.
>>
>> There is no need. There is no such listing on my voter registration.
>>
>> Capiche?
>
>In a word, no.
>
>You have no preference listed on your voter registration form?
For about the fourth time, YES. I am registered with no preference
listed.
>
>BUt there is an option to list voter registration? Or not?
I don't know. I don't think so[1].
We have open primaries, so it's never been a thought.
And, when I went to a caucus, they just took my word that I was a
Republican of some sort (I was there in support of Steve Forbes in
1996).
>
>If you list no option are you automatically listed as independant?
Never asked. No idea.
>
>> >Everybody in the UK is "no preference", it's up the parties to work out
>> >who you support.
>> >
>> >I like it that way.
>>
>> And I like primaries.
>
>Un-necessary in our system.
Well, they're not "necessary" in ours, either (see "caucus" above).
But, in general, the people want them.
[1] I changed my registration when I got my motorcycle permit recently
(motor voter). I don't *think* they asked about party affiliation, but
I'm not positive they didn't.
--
"Clams on the half shell...and rollerskates."
Bernard Edwards & Nile Rodgers
David Loewe, Jr.
atomicrazor . com> wrote:
>The thread started with a discussion of "registered" preferences which I
>just find bizzare.
AFAICT, this is something *you* brought up.
--
"If I told you, I'd have to kill you first..."
Legendary Retort of Sailors To Requests For
'Sensitive' Information
@nospamatomicrazor.com Dave O'Neill
> On Tue, 11 May 2004 17:34:11 GMT, "Dave O'Neill" <dave @ NOSPAM
> atomicrazor . com> wrote:
>
> >The thread started with a discussion of "registered" preferences which I
> >just find bizzare.
>
> AFAICT, this is something *you* brought up.
From upwards in the thread, I responded to the following exchange between
you and Keith:
KM>>I'd be surprised if it were really all that different in the US. After
all,
>you guys actually have registered voters with a political preference.
DLj: And, like yours truly, we have registered voters with *no* political
preference.
>
I was responding to that part of the thread.
Dave
@nospamatomicrazor.com Dave O'Neill
> >> Really.
> >
> >Sorry, I really didn't see any clues massive or otherwise.
>
> "And, like yours truly, we have registered voters with *no* political
> preference."
There's some confusion over the use of the term "registered" I think.
I was taking it to infer something beyond being on the electoral role - I've
heard the term "registered democrat", "registered republican", "registered
independant"
I was assuming this happened in addition to being on the voting role.
> >You seem
> >to be assuming we have perfect knwoledge of each others system.
> >
> ?
>
> If I did, why would I be giving you that clue?
I didn't see it as a clue - merely another spin around the same topic where
it is obvious we are speaking at cross purposes, and, for some reason
generating some heat while doing so.
> >> >> Registration is the term for the process for determining your
> >> >> *eligibility* to vote (Are you old enough to vote? Are you a
citizen?)
> >> >> and determining *where* (as in what precinct) you are to vote (Where
> >> >> do you live?).
> >> >
> >> >I fill in a form every year that the council send to me stating that
I'm a
> >> >citizen over 18 living at the house I live in.
> >>
> >> Seems intrusive.
> >>
> >> I register and I'm registered there until I tell them otherwise
> >> (usually by registering somewhere else) or they get some other
> >> persuasive evidence that I've moved.
> >
> >Technically that is what happens in the UK, but the key is to ensure
> >people have the chance to be registered at their address.
> >
> >You need a polling card to be eligable to vote here which is sent to
> >you address, this system makes sure that you have as much chance of
> >being able to vote as possible.
>
> Here you need an ID (most people show their Drivers License) and you
> need to be entered on the rolls.
Interesting, no ID needed here, just the polling card to be matched with the
role the teller holds a copy of.
So, where do the terms which I hear a lot on here come from i.e. Registered
republican/democrat/independant.
That is the practise I find odd.
Lee DeRaud
atomicrazor . com> wrote:
>So could we go over this "registered independant" thing then?
It means "registered to vote, no party preference". In states that
don't have "open" primaries, voter registration performs two
(more-or-less) independent functions with one piece of paper.
But if you don't believe in (or understand) primaries, the "party
preference" portion of it is not particularly useful.
Lee
Lee DeRaud
atomicrazor . com> wrote:
>"David Loewe, Jr." <dlo...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>news:0k92a01blu7gub76p...@4ax.com...
>> On 11 May 2004 01:23:07 -0700, da...@atomicrazor.com (Dave O'Neill)
>> wrote:
>> >You need a polling card to be eligable to vote here which is sent to
>> >you address, this system makes sure that you have as much chance of
>> >being able to vote as possible.
>>
>> Here you need an ID (most people show their Drivers License) and you
>> need to be entered on the rolls.
>
>Interesting, no ID needed here, just the polling card to be matched with the
>role the teller holds a copy of.
Uh, that "polling card" *is* your ID for voting purposes. Here in
California, we get a card in the mail too (actually the label on the
voter information booklet): you can use that, or you can use your
driver's license. Either way, they match it up with the list at the
polling place. IARS.
Lee
David Loewe, Jr.
atomicrazor . com> wrote:
>"David Loewe, Jr." <dlo...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>news:oaa2a05b3q9q472ir...@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 11 May 2004 17:34:11 GMT, "Dave O'Neill" <dave @ NOSPAM
>> atomicrazor . com> wrote:
>>
>> >The thread started with a discussion of "registered" preferences which I
>> >just find bizzare.
>>
>> AFAICT, this is something *you* brought up.
>
>From upwards in the thread, I responded to the following exchange between
>you and Keith:
>
>KM>>I'd be surprised if it were really all that different in the US. After
>all,
>>you guys actually have registered voters with a political preference.
Funny...
I have that line as by "Dave O'Neill" -
<_Cvmc.3646$784.35...@news-text.cableinet.net>
>
>DLj: And, like yours truly, we have registered voters with *no* political
>preference.
>>
>
>I was responding to that part of the thread.
--
"I still see her standing by the water
Standing there lookin' out to sea
And is she waiting there for me?
On the beach where we used to run..."
Jimmy Webb
@nospamatomicrazor.com Dave O'Neill
> On Tue, 11 May 2004 19:47:37 GMT, "Dave O'Neill" <dave @ NOSPAM
> atomicrazor . com> wrote:
>
> >"David Loewe, Jr." <dlo...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> >news:oaa2a05b3q9q472ir...@4ax.com...
> >> On Tue, 11 May 2004 17:34:11 GMT, "Dave O'Neill" <dave @ NOSPAM
> >> atomicrazor . com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >The thread started with a discussion of "registered" preferences which
I
> >> >just find bizzare.
> >>
> >> AFAICT, this is something *you* brought up.
> >
> >From upwards in the thread, I responded to the following exchange between
> >you and Keith:
> >
> >KM>>I'd be surprised if it were really all that different in the US.
After
> >all,
> >>you guys actually have registered voters with a political preference.
>
> Funny...
Ok weird, showing as Kieth here, "yours truly" doesn't scan like me...
@nospamatomicrazor.com Dave O'Neill
> On Tue, 11 May 2004 17:34:11 GMT, "Dave O'Neill" <dave @ NOSPAM
> atomicrazor . com> wrote:
>
> >So could we go over this "registered independant" thing then?
>
> It means "registered to vote, no party preference". In states that
> don't have "open" primaries, voter registration performs two
> (more-or-less) independent functions with one piece of paper.
Ok, so back to where we started, it's the idea of recording party
preferences at all that I find odd.
UK "party" members do get a say in leaders and local representatives but its
an internal party matter and nothing to do with the formal voting process.
David Loewe, Jr.
atomicrazor . com> wrote:
>"David Loewe, Jr." <dlo...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>news:8cb3a0lbpscmuejn2...@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 11 May 2004 19:47:37 GMT, "Dave O'Neill" <dave @ NOSPAM
>> atomicrazor . com> wrote:
>>
>> >"David Loewe, Jr." <dlo...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>> >news:oaa2a05b3q9q472ir...@4ax.com...
>> >> On Tue, 11 May 2004 17:34:11 GMT, "Dave O'Neill" <dave @ NOSPAM
>> >> atomicrazor . com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >The thread started with a discussion of "registered" preferences which
>> >> >I just find bizzare.
>> >>
>> >> AFAICT, this is something *you* brought up.
>> >
>> >From upwards in the thread, I responded to the following exchange between
>> >you and Keith:
>> >
>> >KM>>I'd be surprised if it were really all that different in the US.
>After
>> >all,
>> >>you guys actually have registered voters with a political preference.
>>
>> Funny...
>
>Ok weird, showing as Kieth here, "yours truly" doesn't scan like me...
No.
The quote below - "And, like yours truly, we have registered voters
with *no* political preference." - is me. You've got that one right.
The quote above - "I'd be surprised if it were really all that
different in the US. After all, you guys actually have registered
voters with a political preference." - is you.
Now, *that* quote was a response to something I threw at Keith, but
it's you.
>
>> I have that line as by "Dave O'Neill" -
>> <_Cvmc.3646$784.35...@news-text.cableinet.net>
Run the Message ID through DejaGoogle just to prove it to yourself.
>> >
>> >DLj: And, like yours truly, we have registered voters with *no* political
>> >preference.
>> >>
>> >I was responding to that part of the thread.
--
"People in the computer industry use the word "user", which to them
means "idiot"."
- Dave Barry
David Loewe, Jr.
atomicrazor . com> wrote:
>"Lee DeRaud" <lee.d...@adelphia.net> wrote in message
>news:gqi2a0h5f038pm93g...@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 11 May 2004 17:34:11 GMT, "Dave O'Neill" <dave @ NOSPAM
>> atomicrazor . com> wrote:
>>
>> >So could we go over this "registered independant" thing then?
>>
>> It means "registered to vote, no party preference". In states that
>> don't have "open" primaries, voter registration performs two
>> (more-or-less) independent functions with one piece of paper.
>
>Ok, so back to where we started, it's the idea of recording party
>preferences at all that I find odd.
You know, at some point, I'm just going to conclude that you're a
fantastically successful troll...
>
>UK "party" members do get a say in leaders and local representatives but its
>an internal party matter and nothing to do with the formal voting process.
>
>> But if you don't believe in (or understand) primaries, the "party
>> preference" portion of it is not particularly useful.
--
"Quote! Quote! Young man, the barbarians are hammering at the gates
of our civilization, and you stand there saying 'quote' when you mean
'quotation'."
- Prof. Charles Lloyd of Davidson College, circa 1968
David Loewe, Jr.
Stemper) wrote:
>In article <0k92a01blu7gub76p...@4ax.com>, David Loewe, Jr writes:
>
>>Here you need an ID (most people show their Drivers License) and you
>>need to be entered on the rolls.
>
>I haven't shown any form of identification in *at least* ten years,
>quite possibly a good deal more. If I wanted to register at the polling
>place, I'd need to bring ID, or other proof of residency, such as a
>utility bill in my name.
You need it in Missouri -
http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/news/local/8362328.htm?1c
--
"When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators do not know
whether to answer 'Present' or 'Not guilty'."
- Theodore Roosevelt
Michael Stemper
>On Wed, 12 May 2004 13:01:01 -0500, mste...@siemens-emis.com (Michael Stemper) wrote:
>>In article <0k92a01blu7gub76p...@4ax.com>, David Loewe, Jr writes:
>>>Here you need an ID (most people show their Drivers License) and you
>>>need to be entered on the rolls.
>>
>>I haven't shown any form of identification in *at least* ten years,
>>quite possibly a good deal more.
>You need it in Missouri -
That doesn't surprise me in the least. It just emphasizes the point that
I've repeatedly made to our British interlocuter: voting laws and practices
are determined on a state-by-state basis.
--
Michael F. Stemper
#include <Standard_Disclaimer>
Build a man a fire, and you warm him for a day. Set him on fire,
and you warm him for a lifetime.
David Loewe, Jr.
Stemper) wrote:
>In article <6as4a016iighavr6k...@4ax.com>, David Loewe, Jr. writes:
>>On Wed, 12 May 2004 13:01:01 -0500, mste...@siemens-emis.com (Michael Stemper) wrote:
>>>In article <0k92a01blu7gub76p...@4ax.com>, David Loewe, Jr writes:
>
>>>>Here you need an ID (most people show their Drivers License) and you
>>>>need to be entered on the rolls.
>>>
>>>I haven't shown any form of identification in *at least* ten years,
>>>quite possibly a good deal more.
>
>>You need it in Missouri -
>
>That doesn't surprise me in the least. It just emphasizes the point that
>I've repeatedly made to our British interlocuter:
Actually, although I'm not positive and am too unconcerned to look it
up, I think everyone who has been commenting on the "Parliament" side
has been Canadian.
>voting laws and practices
>are determined on a state-by-state basis.
--
"Anybody that wants the presidency so much he'll spend two years
organising and campaigning for it is not to be trusted with the
office."
- David Broder
Pete McCutchen
<ste...@tomcat.astro.psu.edu> wrote:
>what is the worst aQ could do to the US - naively that would be
>to disrupt the Nov election and deliver a major economic and moral
>blow (some obvious high value multiple targets); however a worse
>scenario could be if they did nothing, and then arranged a leak
>after the election that $election-winner had cut a deal with them;
>it would be relatively easy to generate relevant paperwork in advance
>and then let is existence be accidentally leaked to enough people-who-care
>for the story to break. Absolute lose-lose scenario, admitting there
>was any contact is bad, denying it is bad, covering it up is bad, letting
>it go public is bad.
>Of course no deal need exist, merely the perception that there had been one.
>(Actually cutting a deal would be even worse, but that is beyond aQ abilities
>to arrange)
The problem with that theory is that it would quickly be dismissed as
just another wacky conspiracy theory. I'm sure that Michael Moore or
Ann Coulter would be happy to run with it (depending on which side was
alleged to be in on the deal), and that would convince most normal
people that it was nutty.
--
Pete McCutchen
Keith Morrison
>>That doesn't surprise me in the least. It just emphasizes the point that
>>I've repeatedly made to our British interlocuter:
>
>Actually, although I'm not positive and am too unconcerned to look it
>up, I think everyone who has been commenting on the "Parliament" side
>has been Canadian.
Yeah, goodness knows when someone has been talking about how things
are done in the UK, and his experiences with the system there, the
first thing I'd assume is that he is a Canadian.
--
Keith
David Loewe, Jr.
Actually, I was looking at the numbers of ".ca" at the end of the
e-mail addresses. You and al-Hazred are both Canadians.
And, as I said, "...I'm not positive and am too unconcerned to look it
up."
<yawn>
Keith Morrison
>>>>That doesn't surprise me in the least. It just emphasizes the point that
>>>>I've repeatedly made to our British interlocuter:
>>>
>>>Actually, although I'm not positive and am too unconcerned to look it
>>>up, I think everyone who has been commenting on the "Parliament" side
>>>has been Canadian.
>>
>>Yeah, goodness knows when someone has been talking about how things
>>are done in the UK, and his experiences with the system there, the
>>first thing I'd assume is that he is a Canadian.
>
>Actually, I was looking at the numbers of ".ca" at the end of the
>e-mail addresses. You and al-Hazred are both Canadians.
>
>And, as I said, "...I'm not positive and am too unconcerned to look it
>up."
>
><yawn>
You mean aside from that conversation you had with a chap named
O'Neill.
That yawn thing is quite clever, by the way. What an incredibly
inventive way to show your intellectual superiority. Most impressive.
However did you come up with it?
--
Keith
@nospamatomicrazor.com Dave O'Neill
"Keith Morrison" <kei...@polarnet.ca> wrote in message
news:uii8a09su1sejmeeh...@4ax.com...
> "David Loewe, Jr." <dlo...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>That doesn't surprise me in the least. It just emphasizes the point
that
> >>>>I've repeatedly made to our British interlocuter:
> >>>
> >>>Actually, although I'm not positive and am too unconcerned to look it
> >>>up, I think everyone who has been commenting on the "Parliament" side
> >>>has been Canadian.
> >>
> >>Yeah, goodness knows when someone has been talking about how things
> >>are done in the UK, and his experiences with the system there, the
> >>first thing I'd assume is that he is a Canadian.
> >
> >Actually, I was looking at the numbers of ".ca" at the end of the
> >e-mail addresses. You and al-Hazred are both Canadians.
> >
> >And, as I said, "...I'm not positive and am too unconcerned to look it
> >up."
> >
> ><yawn>
>
> You mean aside from that conversation you had with a chap named
> O'Neill.
Looks outside, yup definately looks like the UK to me :)
David Loewe, Jr.
<kei...@polarnet.ca> wrote:
>"David Loewe, Jr." <dlo...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>>>>>That doesn't surprise me in the least. It just emphasizes the point that
>>>>>I've repeatedly made to our British interlocuter:
>>>>
>>>>Actually, although I'm not positive and am too unconcerned to look it
>>>>up, I think everyone who has been commenting on the "Parliament" side
>>>>has been Canadian.
>>>
>>>Yeah, goodness knows when someone has been talking about how things
>>>are done in the UK, and his experiences with the system there, the
>>>first thing I'd assume is that he is a Canadian.
>>
>>Actually, I was looking at the numbers of ".ca" at the end of the
>>e-mail addresses. You and al-Hazred are both Canadians.
>>
>>And, as I said, "...I'm not positive and am too unconcerned to look it
>>up."
>>
>><yawn>
>
>You mean aside from that conversation you had with a chap named
>O'Neill.
Yep.
You know, I specifically allowed for the possibility that I was, you
know, *wrong*.
Why you would *want* to make however much deal you're making out of
that is a bit enlightening.
One might conclude that *you* were trying to display that
"intellectual superiority" you accuse me in the next quoted material
of showing.
That would be quite ironic - don't 'cha think?
>
>That yawn thing is quite clever, by the way. What an incredibly
>inventive way to show your intellectual superiority. Most impressive.
Darn.
It didn't work.
It was supposed to show *disinterest*, not "intellectual superiority."
Oh, well.
Now you know what it's supposed to signify.
>However did you come up with it?
When I'm bored, I yawn. It's very simple. I notice that a lot of other
people do that when they're bored, too.
--
"With a gentleman I try to be a gentleman and a half, and with a fraud
I try to be a fraud and a half."
- Otto von Bismarck