|
Gotcha, Harry!!!
I saw this on another internet forum and it spoke volumes about the 2000
election. My first thought was of good ol' Harry and how he did anything and everything for Gore to try to win the election. This is solid proof that Bush won. End of story. Case closed. {wildly pumps fist in air} Ha! I finally finally got you Harry. The below posting will bring you to your knees. You will then finally admit to all on "wrecked.boats" that you were wrong. Say it... Say it.... "Okay, okay, I'm sorry, I was wrong. You were right." HA HA HA HA!!!!!! {pumps fist in air again and hollers "YES"!} Butch Ammon ============cut 'n pasted off another internet forum============= At about the time our original 13 states adopted their new constitution, in the year 1787, Alexander Tyler (a Scottish history professor at The University of Edinburgh) had this to say about "The Fall of The Athenian Republic" some 2,000 years prior. "A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, (which is) always followed by a dictatorship." "The average age of the worlds greatest civilizations from the beginning of history, has been about 200 years. During those 200 years, these nations always progressed through the following sequence: From Bondage to spiritual faith; From spiritual faith to great courage; From courage to liberty; From liberty to abundance; From abundance to complacency; From complacency to apathy; From apathy to dependence; From dependence back into bondage." Professor Joseph Olson of Hamline University School of Law, St. Paul, Minnesota, points out some interesting facts concerning the most recent Presidential election: Population of counties won by: Gore=127 million Bush=143 million Square miles of land won by: Gore=580,000 Bush=22,427,000 States won by: Gore=19; Bush=29 Murder rate per 100,000 residents in counties won by : Gore=13.2 Bush=2.1 Professor Olson adds: "In aggregate, the map of the territory Bush won was mostly the land owned by the tax-paying citizens of this great country. Gore's territory encompassed those citizens living in government-owned tenements and living off government welfare..." Olson believes the U.S. is now somewhere between the "apathy" and "complacency" phase of Professor Tyler's definition of democracy; with some 40 percent of the nation's population already having reached the "governmental dependency" phase. |
Gotcha, Harry!!!
You'll be crying next november...your dumb boy bush is going to lose. Maybe not. Kerry will be viewed as the piece of scum that he really is. Edwards then will pull ahead and take the nomination. Then it will be a tight race for POTUS. Bush will win in even a more tighter race than Bush/Gore ever had. 4 more years of Bush, which will set the stage for Hil-LIAR-y in 2008. Remember the bet I that made? If Bush loses, we meet up somewhere and I will buy you lunch or dinner at your choice of restaurants. If Bush wins, you take me to lunch or dinner at my choice of restaurant. ....Deal? Butch Ammon |
Gotcha, Harry!!!
Butch is a nice guy, but he is easily misled.
Okay, okay, okay.... I should have checked "snopes" before trying to one-up you. But just wait, I'll have the last laugh. A little careful research, and then I'll finally be able to holler "Ha! Gotcha!" Butch Ammon |
Gotcha, Harry!!!
Butch Ammon wrote:
Butch is a nice guy, but he is easily misled. Okay, okay, okay.... I should have checked "snopes" before trying to one-up you. But just wait, I'll have the last laugh. A little careful research, and then I'll finally be able to holler "Ha! Gotcha!" Butch Ammon The biggest joke in your life is now in the White House...the doof named Dubya. |
Gotcha, Harry!!!
Kerry seems at least a dozen rungs up the ladder from Bush. Oh, I
forgot...Kerry hunts, and has no problem with ownership of rifles and shotguns, but...he's not on the NRA most-favored list...and therefore in your mind, which has been made up for you by the NRA, he's scum. Is that about it? No. It's Kerry's anti-war stature. He's as bad a "Hanoi" Jane Fonda! I'm being serious here... I have two brothers-in-law there were *IN* Vietnam!! They fought hard, survived, and came home. They know the stories, the talk from home, the talk among the troups... There is a lot of nasty stuff about Kerry that is not being printed (yet). There are vets that to this day and age still want a piece of Kerry! Besides, Kerry doesn't hunt, nor does he own a firearm. Edwards then will pull ahead and take the nomination. I don't think so. Why not? I think Edwards is okay. He reminds me of the old southern yellow-dog democrats. Then it will be a tight race for POTUS. Bush will win in even a more tighter race than Bush/Gore ever had. I'm beginning -just beginning- to believe that the voters have had enough of Bush's stupidity, craziness and lies. 4 more years of Bush, which will set the stage for Hil-LIAR-y in 2008. Remember the bet I that made? If Bush loses, we meet up somewhere and I will buy you lunch or dinner at your choice of restaurants. If Bush wins, you take me to lunch or dinner at my choice of restaurant. ....Deal? Butch Ammon Absolutely...though I thought the choice of restaurant was up to the loser. Whichever..... It's a deal! Butch Ammon |
Gotcha, Harry!!!
123 (Butch Ammon) wrote in message ...
I saw this on another internet forum and it spoke volumes about the 2000 election. My first thought was of good ol' Harry and how he did anything and everything for Gore to try to win the election. This is solid proof that Bush won. End of story. Case closed. {wildly pumps fist in air} Ha! I finally finally got you Harry. The below posting will bring you to your knees. You will then finally admit to all on "wrecked.boats" that you were wrong. Say it... Say it.... "Okay, okay, I'm sorry, I was wrong. You were right." HA HA HA HA!!!!!! {pumps fist in air again and hollers "YES"!} Butch Ammon snip Sorry to interrupt your victory dance, but this is bogus. :-) The only parts of it that are true are the "population of counties" and "square miles of area" (although that is counting counties as well). Everything else is bogus. 1. The quote from the Scottish history professor is a fabrication. It's also historically inaccurate regardless of who said it. See: http://www.lib.ed.ac.uk/faqs/parqs.shtml#Aftytler1 2. The quotes from "Professor Olson" are not from him. Someone made up the murder-rate numbers and quotes and then posted them anonymously to Usenet on 11/28/00. Within a couple days after that, someone had affixed Professor Olson's name to the "statistics." 3. The final state count was Gore = 20, Bush = 30. There are 50 states, not 48. 4. The murder rate comparison is wrong. The correct numbers are approximately Bush = 4.1, Gore = 6.5. Note that if you compare on a more equal population-density-basis, this difference essentially goes away (e.g., Gore=7.5, Bush=7.0 for counties with 300 people/km^2). See: http://www.snopes.com/politics/quotes/tyler.asp 5. The sentiment expressed by the "quotes" from professor Olson implies the Gore voters are largely parasites living off the hard work of the Bush voters. This is also wrong. Comparing the demographics of Bush and Gore voters reveals relatively few significant differences (in education, income, etc.) other than the fact that blacks preferred Gore about 4 to 1. Also, consider the fact that Bush won most of the states that receive more federal funds than they pay in taxes while Gore won most of the states that pay more than they receive. The reasons for this aren't entirely clear, but it strains credulity to interpret it as the "blue" states living off of the "red" states. The data imply it's the other way around. See: http://psweb.sbs.ohio-state.edu/facu...cy-OSUConf.PDF Maybe you can find another way to get Harry? :) -Mike P. |
Gotcha, Harry!!!
Sorry to interrupt your victory dance, but this is bogus. :-)
Maybe you can find another way to get Harry? :) -Mike P. I'm working on it.... I'm working on it.... It will take careful research and documented facts, but I'll get him! Ha ha ha ha. Butch Ammon |
Gotcha, Harry!!!
|
Gotcha, Harry!!!
"bb" wrote in message How much tighter can it get than Gore winning the vote and Bush being appointed by the supreme court? This is getting tiresome, like fourth-graders whining "...no fair!!. Will you people PLEASE read the Constitution? Gore lost 20 of the votes that mattered, and Bush won 30. You keep citing as your basis a national aggregate total that always has been, still is, and properly ought to be irrelevant in the Presidential election. Please post a copy of the USSC document detailing the "appointment" of the President. |
Gotcha, Harry!!!
On Thu, 19 Feb 2004 09:25:26 -0500, John Gaquin wrote:
Please post a copy of the USSC document detailing the "appointment" of the President. I'm not alone in the opinion that the Supreme Court "short-circuited" the process. http://www.lightparty.com/Misc/NoneD...ItTreason.html http://www.larouchepub.com/lar/2000/...on_sup_ct.html |
Gotcha, Harry!!!
John Gaquin wrote:
"bb" wrote in message How much tighter can it get than Gore winning the vote and Bush being appointed by the supreme court? This is getting tiresome, like fourth-graders whining "...no fair!!. Will you people PLEASE read the Constitution? Gore lost 20 of the votes that mattered, and Bush won 30. It has nothing to do with the Constitution. What happened is that Bush and his operatives *stole* the Florida electoral votes, and the Republican dominated Supreme Court rubber-stamped the theft. Please post a copy of the USSC document detailing the "appointment" of the President. Dubya was annointed by the Supreme Court. |
Gotcha, Harry!!!
"John Gaquin" wrote in message ...
Will you people PLEASE read the Constitution? Then perhaps, some US history would be in order. I swear, some folks never-ending crybabying, almost four years after the fact, is nearly as amusing as their shocking ignorance of US history which they so proudly display for all to see, here on rec.boat. 1876 Rutherford B Hayes 185 Elec. vote - 4,033,768 pop. vote. Samuel Tilden 184 Elec. vote - 4,285,992 pop. vote. 1888 Benjamin Harrison 233 Elec. vote - 5,440,216 pop. vote. Grover Cleveland 168 Elec. vote - 5,538,233 pop. vote. Some other rather famous "minority presidents" (who were elected with less than 50% of the popular vote) were Abraham Lincoln (1860), Woodrow Wilson (1912 & 1916), Harry Trumam (1948), John F. Kennedy (1960), Richard Nixon (1968) and, lo and behold, their "hero" William Jefferson Clinton Bythe (1992). Suck on that one, all of you never-ending crybabies. -- SJM |
Gotcha, Harry!!!
Scott McFadden wrote:
"John Gaquin" wrote in message ... Will you people PLEASE read the Constitution? Then perhaps, some US history would be in order. I swear, some folks never-ending crybabying, almost four years after the fact, is nearly as amusing as their shocking ignorance of US history which they so proudly display for all to see, here on rec.boat. The issue is not the electoral college, per se, but the stealing of the election by BushCrap operatives in Florida, and the affirmation of that theft by the KonservativeKrapKourt. |
Gotcha, Harry!!!
"Harry Krause" wrote in message ... John Gaquin wrote: "bb" wrote in message How much tighter can it get than Gore winning the vote and Bush being appointed by the supreme court? This is getting tiresome, like fourth-graders whining "...no fair!!. Will you people PLEASE read the Constitution? Gore lost 20 of the votes that mattered, and Bush won 30. It has nothing to do with the Constitution. What happened is that Bush and his operatives *stole* the Florida electoral votes, and the Republican dominated Supreme Court rubber-stamped the theft. Again, the Supreme Court just said that you can't change the rules on counting votes after the votes have been cast. This is a foreign concept to you Democrats but it is the law. Please post a copy of the USSC document detailing the "appointment" of the President. Dubya was annointed by the Supreme Court. Actually it was the Constitution of the United States of America. The operative word in the previous sentence is "States". This country is comprised of 50 states. Bert |
Gotcha, Harry!!!
thunder wrote:
I'm not alone in the opinion that the Supreme Court "short-circuited" the process. Nope. Anybody that looks at the facts will conclude that the Supremes acted in a partisan fashion and probably illegally. Scott McFadden wrote: I swear, some folks never-ending crybabying, almost four years after the fact, is nearly as amusing as their shocking ignorance of US history which they so proudly display for all to see, here on rec.boat. What's shocking is that you miss the point. Repeatedly. And you so proudly display your obtuseness etc etc. The point is not that Bush was not elected by a majority vote (since that's not the way the President is elected anyway). The point is that the Supreme Court interfered with the election on blatantly partisan grounds. Of course, to many people, cheating isn't wrong if your chosen side wins. DSK |
Gotcha, Harry!!!
OK, as time goes by this is getting fuzzy.
Did the S.C. actually rule to overturn something or did they affirm the Fla decision? -W "DSK" wrote in message ... The point is that the Supreme Court interfered with the election on blatantly partisan grounds. |
Gotcha, Harry!!!
The issue is not the electoral college, per se, but the stealing of the election by BushCrap operatives in Florida, and the affirmation of that theft by the KonservativeKrapKourt. Outrageous. So you say that the KKK was to blame? The KKK. OK, Hairball. And the Chief Justice is the Grand Wizard? |
Gotcha, Harry!!!
Clams Canino wrote:
OK, as time goes by this is getting fuzzy. Did the S.C. actually rule to overturn something or did they affirm the Fla decision? IIRC they did not give the Florida court time to rule The Florida court made two hasty (and IMHO rather stupid) decisions: with the deadline approaching, they ruled that the recount *had* to be completed before the deadline or no recounted votes would stand... then they stopped the recount process. The Democrats tried to open a hearing on this decision, saying that either they should give the recount a chance to be completed, or let the recounted votes stand... but didn't get very far. The Republicans went straight to the top. The Supreme Court stepped in to halt the whole process. It's like a game called on account of rain, with a win going to the team that the umpire decides *should* have won. The above is partly from a recap of headlines and partly from my admittedly not perfect memory. For the actual Supreme Court papers: http://www.supremecourtus.gov/florida.html Hope this helps... intended to be non-partisan... Doug King |
Gotcha, Harry!!!
Harry Krause wrote in message ...
Scott McFadden wrote: "John Gaquin" wrote in message ... Will you people PLEASE read the Constitution? Then perhaps, some US history would be in order. I swear, some folks never-ending crybabying, almost four years after the fact, is nearly as amusing as their shocking ignorance of US history which they so proudly display for all to see, here on rec.boat. The issue is not the electoral college, per se, but the stealing of the election by BushCrap operatives in Florida, and the affirmation of that theft by the KonservativeKrapKourt. No it's not, as that never happened... Read the post by DSK, he has it right. But of course, being the lying piece of **** you are, you would not care for the truth. Gotta say it again, after seeing what happened to Gephardt in Iowa, it is clear that the rank and file is also telling the union hacks like you to get fu****! Take back the news group, don't even address Harrys lies... |
Gotcha, Harry!!!
DSK wrote in message ...
The point is that the Supreme Court interfered with the election on blatantly partisan grounds. You mean like that legal, laughingstock, The Florida Supreme Court did -repeatedly- in rewriting pre-exsisting laws? Tell us Doug, why was Volusia County able to comply with those pre-exsisting laws while the democratic "strongholds" of Dade, Broward and PB counties were unable too? Corrupt, incompetent, and inept locally elected democratic offcials in charge of the local elections offices? Hmmm? Of course, to many people, cheating isn't wrong if your chosen side wins. Your "side" cheated and lost anyway. -- SJM |
Gotcha, Harry!!!
One doesn't have to be a supporter of George Bush to be able to tell
that he is getting a raw deal. Some of the charges being leveled against him are so thin as to be nearly transparent, yet somehow, they find legs in the court of public opinion. Recently, DNC Chairman Terry McAuliffe charged that Bush was AWOL from his military service with the Texas National Guard. (For the record, Terry McAuliffe never served in the military in any capacity.) John Kerry ran with that theme, suggesting that by serving as a fighter pilot in the National Guard, Bush was shirking combat duty in Vietnam. (That doesn't say much for the National Guard.) In any case, Bush was a fighter pilot, not a cook. It is only slightly less dangerous to fly a fighter jet in combat than it is in peacetime. I found it fascinating that the same folks who defended Bill Clinton's obvious draft-dodging tactics now condemn George Bush for serving without going to Vietnam. The fact that Bush received an honorable discharge and had more than the required 50 credits needed to earn it is dwarfed by the cacophony of charges that say the exact opposite. John Kerry was among Bill Clinton's staunchest defenders of draft dodging. Kerry himself was so opposed to the war that, upon his return from Vietnam, he earned the nickname "Hanoi John." If Kerry was so philosophically against the war, how can he disparage Bush for not participating in what Kerry described in 1972 as a war in which American soldiers "personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Ghengis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam"? That's the Vietnam War Kerry described to the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations in April 1971. If what Kerry alleged is true, then why would he suggest that a possible experience with rape, torture and brutality is a necessary qualification for president? Unless Kerry didn't really believe what he was saying back then. Or doesn't believe it now. I submit that if Bush had served in Vietnam, Kerry would be running on his opposition to the war in Vietnam, instead of his service in it. The media is trying to make a case out of Bush being discharged eight months before his six-year term with the Guard was up as if that were unusual in 1973 or involved pulling strings. Watching Scott McClelland answer the White House press corps was a study in frustration. The press corps didn't want to be bothered by the facts; their minds were already made up. But has anybody noted that Kerry got out of the Navy eight months early for the same reasons? The war was being phased out. Yet I don't hear anybody talking about that. Bush has been accused of lying about why we got involved in the Iraq war. Has anybody questioned the fact that France, Germany, the U.N. and even John Kerry reached the same conclusions that Bush did, based on the same intelligence? Does anybody really believe Bush had information even the CIA didn't have, and then ignored it? Where did Bush get this information? Bush has been accused of "betraying" America by a clearly demented Al Gore who charged that Bush was preparing for the war with Iraq even before 9-11. Is it likely that, having adopted a policy of regime change in 1998, the Clinton administration didn't have a similar war plan already in place? The war with Iraq should have been one of the most easily justified in American history. Saddam defied the U.N. and committed 17 violations of Security Council resolutions in the 12 years between the wars. Even the president's critics are not arguing that Saddam should still be in power in Baghdad. Instead, they say the White House acted "unilaterally" – a charge belied by the fact there exists a "coalition" of nations. It exists now, and it existed before the war began, and troops from a dozen countries have given their lives to free the Iraqi people. If it was American "unilateralism," what were they doing there when they were killed? The Democrats are openly admitting that this election isn't about domestic issues, the war with Iraq or the economy. It's about "electability" – meaning whoever has the best chance of beating Bush. If Howdy Doody had a chance of defeating Bush, he'd be their candidate. Politics is a rough business. But this isn't about politics. It isn't even about what's best for America. It's all about getting revenge for Election 2000. But remember, that was the election that guaranteed Al Gore was not in charge on Sept. 11, 2001. Does anybody really think that was a bad thing? |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:54 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com