"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 12 Feb 2008 12:50:18 -0400, "Don White"
wrote:


"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
news
On Tue, 12 Feb 2008 11:37:46 -0400, "Don White"
wrote:

Canada may have to start sending down observers to make sure things are
run
on the up & up.

Sure why not.

We can always learn new ways to create scandals from you folks.

For example:

snip...
~~ snerk ~~

Yikes...you went back 30 years on some of that material...
If I did that for the US, I'd dominate the newsgroup for the next 2 light
years!

Well, you started it. :)

Speaking of which, you getting itchy to put that Princecraft in the
water?

Weather is just too cool to even dream of it. I do have to go out and brush
Sundays heavy snowfall off the tarp.
At least the waves at the harbour mouth are down to about six feet from over
nine on the weekend.
Air temp is a balmy 24F but they stopped reporting the ocean temp for some
reason.

On Feb 12, 10:37*am, "Don White" wrote:
While flippin' channels yesterday, I breezed through CNN.
There was some king of panel with Wolfe Blitzer, that tall lanky guy, Jack
McClafferty? and a couple others.
They were talking about some voting irregularities in Washington (state?) by
the Republicans. *Apparantly, the people counting the ballots figured they
could predict the outcome at a certain point in their counting..so packed it
in before finishing. *What the &*^?
Canada may have to start sending down observers to make sure things are run
on the up & up. Afterall someone has to help protect that fledging democracy
you'all call the U.S.of A.

Let me take a few wild guess's.
Your Democrats.........
You beleave the "problems" with the Florida vote were for
real......

I lived in Long Beach NY for about 10 years. The Republicans had been
complaining for years about fraud on mail in ballots. So they checked
the mailed in ballots for names of people that were dead, and guess
what, there they were. Then they checked the names of old people in
the Nursing Homes that didn't even know where they were, and guess
again, they had somehow filled out their cards. Their was one thing in
common, all those dead people, and the folks that didn't know where
they were, had all voted for Democrats, how strange. Their wasn't that
much of a stink made over it, ballot stuffing is a Democratic party
tradition. They were doing it in the south for a long time, it just
took a while to work it's way north. Look at the so called super
delagates that the Democrats use in primary's, but Republicans don't
have any such thing. Those super delagates are used to make sure the
people that run the party get their way, who cares about what the
voters think.

On Feb 12, 9:17�am, John H. wrote:
On Tue, 12 Feb 2008 09:07:09 -0800 (PST), Chuck Gould





wrote:
On Feb 12, 7:37?am, "Don White" wrote:
While flippin' channels yesterday, I breezed through CNN.
There was some king of panel with Wolfe Blitzer, that tall lanky guy, Jack
McClafferty? and a couple others.
They were talking about some voting irregularities in Washington (state?) by
the Republicans. ?Apparantly, the people counting the ballots figured they
could predict the outcome at a certain point in their counting..so packed it
in before finishing. ?What the &*^?
Canada may have to start sending down observers to make sure things are run
on the up & up. Afterall someone has to help protect that fledging democracy
you'all call the U.S.of A.

And here's the irony;

Our current state governor (a D) was elected by a margin of a couple
of hundred votes, maybe less. With over a million votes to count, our
state law requires a recount if the margin is less than percent or so.
The quick and dirty first count showed the Republican winning by a
very slim margin. The recount reversed the outcome, with some errors
in the state's largest county (also the most extremely D county) being
discovered. Even though there were at least a few errors in virtually
*every* county in the state, the R team focused on the errors found in
the most urban county and began screaming "Vote Fraud! The count has
been rigged in the liberal county to change the outcome!!"

Roll the clock forward to the Republican primary; With 80-some percent
of the votes counted the officially "preferred" Republican candidate
had a narrow lead. Rather than risk any change in the desired outcome,
the R's decided to simply *stop counting* the rest of the ballots!
(Vote fraud, indeed). Huckabee's legal team put enough pressure on the
state party that counting resumed. It didn't change the outcome, but
it sure took the wind out of the R party sails for the next time they
lose by a narrow amount and want to claim there were irregularities in
the count.

I guess 99.99% accurate is only an acceptable standard if the final
totals reflect the results wanted. Errors are made in favor of as well
as against both sides in every count, but outright fruad is pretty
rare.

I'm going to try to make up for all your problems, Chuck. The wife and I
will be voting for Obama in about 15 minutes!
--
John H- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Good for you, John.

While I have not yet decided whether I would support McCain in a
contest vs. Obama I haven't ruled it out- not by a long ways. (I
definitely prefer McCain to Hillary Clinton). Nice to see folks who
are open minded enough to cross party lines. If I were part of a
political party, I'd like to think I would do the same when conditions
warranted. Everybody making their most carefully considered individual
choice is how we wind up with (hopefully) the best overall collective
choice.

On Feb 12, 1:08�pm, "JimH" wrote:
"Chuck Gould" wrote in message

...
On Feb 12, 9:17?am, John H. wrote:





On Tue, 12 Feb 2008 09:07:09 -0800 (PST), Chuck Gould

wrote:
On Feb 12, 7:37?am, "Don White" wrote:
While flippin' channels yesterday, I breezed through CNN.
There was some king of panel with Wolfe Blitzer, that tall lanky guy,
Jack
McClafferty? and a couple others.
They were talking about some voting irregularities in Washington
(state?) by
the Republicans. ?Apparantly, the people counting the ballots figured
they
could predict the outcome at a certain point in their counting..so
packed it
in before finishing. ?What the &*^?
Canada may have to start sending down observers to make sure things are
run
on the up & up. Afterall someone has to help protect that fledging
democracy
you'all call the U.S.of A.

And here's the irony;

Our current state governor (a D) was elected by a margin of a couple
of hundred votes, maybe less. With over a million votes to count, our
state law requires a recount if the margin is less than percent or so.
The quick and dirty first count showed the Republican winning by a
very slim margin. The recount reversed the outcome, with some errors
in the state's largest county (also the most extremely D county) being
discovered. Even though there were at least a few errors in virtually
*every* county in the state, the R team focused on the errors found in
the most urban county and began screaming "Vote Fraud! The count has
been rigged in the liberal county to change the outcome!!"

Roll the clock forward to the Republican primary; With 80-some percent
of the votes counted the officially "preferred" Republican candidate
had a narrow lead. Rather than risk any change in the desired outcome,
the R's decided to simply *stop counting* the rest of the ballots!
(Vote fraud, indeed). Huckabee's legal team put enough pressure on the
state party that counting resumed. It didn't change the outcome, but
it sure took the wind out of the R party sails for the next time they
lose by a narrow amount and want to claim there were irregularities in
the count.

I guess 99.99% accurate is only an acceptable standard if the final
totals reflect the results wanted. Errors are made in favor of as well
as against both sides in every count, but outright fruad is pretty
rare.

I'm going to try to make up for all your problems, Chuck. The wife and I
will be voting for Obama in about 15 minutes!
--
John H- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Good for you, John.

While I have not yet decided whether I would support McCain in a
contest vs. Obama I haven't ruled it out- not by a long ways. (I
definitely prefer McCain to Hillary Clinton). Nice to see folks who
are open minded enough to cross party lines. If I were part of a
political party, I'd like to think I would do the same when conditions
warranted. Everybody making their most carefully considered individual
choice is how we wind up with (hopefully) the best overall collective
choice.

--------------

Why anyone would vote for someone promising to raise taxes, increase the
size of government, expand entitlement programs and force their health
insurance plan on us is beyond me.

Why anyone would vote for someone not offering any solutions or plans, yet
talking a big game is beyond me.

One thing I do know...........the guy sure knows how to convince some
(many?) that they should vote for him despite those promises and despite the
lack of plans or solutions.........another Great and Powerful Oz!

Maybe it is because Obama is such an eloquent speaker............a very
powerful tool after listening to Dubya these past 7+ years.

My oh my!- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

In my opinion, Obama is doing fairly well right now for a variety of
reasons.

As you mentioned, he is an excellent speaker. While McCain and Clinton
are both well-spoken, Obama seems to be up a level or so beyond
standard political speech making. (As opposed to GWB who is at least
slighty below average in this category).

As much as anything else, I think people are finally sick to death of
"politics as usual." The prospect of electing a Clinton seems like
moving the clock back to the 1990's, not ahead into the 2010's. McCain
is an honorable and capable politician, but that may be his major
stumbling block- he's a career politican.

Whatever else, we can't keep trying to pull the middle of the country
to the far left or far right and thinking of fellow Americans as "the
enemy".
If any of these candidates can attact a new, centrist plurality that
crosses traditional party lines that would likely be very good for he
country.

Just think, Jim.....there's a possiblity that two guys as politically
opposite as you and I might even vote for the same candidate in Nov.
Who'da imagined such a thing at this time last year? :-)

On Feb 12, 4:36Â*pm, Chuck Gould wrote:
On Feb 12, 1:08�pm, "JimH" wrote:





"Chuck Gould" wrote in message

...
On Feb 12, 9:17?am, John H. wrote:

On Tue, 12 Feb 2008 09:07:09 -0800 (PST), Chuck Gould

wrote:
On Feb 12, 7:37?am, "Don White" wrote:
While flippin' channels yesterday, I breezed through CNN.
There was some king of panel with Wolfe Blitzer, that tall lanky guy,
Jack
McClafferty? and a couple others.
They were talking about some voting irregularities in Washington
(state?) by
the Republicans. ?Apparantly, the people counting the ballots figured
they
could predict the outcome at a certain point in their counting..so
packed it
in before finishing. ?What the &*^?
Canada may have to start sending down observers to make sure things are
run
on the up & up. Afterall someone has to help protect that fledging
democracy
you'all call the U.S.of A.

And here's the irony;

Our current state governor (a D) was elected by a margin of a couple
of hundred votes, maybe less. With over a million votes to count, our
state law requires a recount if the margin is less than percent or so..
The quick and dirty first count showed the Republican winning by a
very slim margin. The recount reversed the outcome, with some errors
in the state's largest county (also the most extremely D county) being
discovered. Even though there were at least a few errors in virtually
*every* county in the state, the R team focused on the errors found in
the most urban county and began screaming "Vote Fraud! The count has
been rigged in the liberal county to change the outcome!!"

Roll the clock forward to the Republican primary; With 80-some percent
of the votes counted the officially "preferred" Republican candidate
had a narrow lead. Rather than risk any change in the desired outcome,
the R's decided to simply *stop counting* the rest of the ballots!
(Vote fraud, indeed). Huckabee's legal team put enough pressure on the
state party that counting resumed. It didn't change the outcome, but
it sure took the wind out of the R party sails for the next time they
lose by a narrow amount and want to claim there were irregularities in
the count.

I guess 99.99% accurate is only an acceptable standard if the final
totals reflect the results wanted. Errors are made in favor of as well
as against both sides in every count, but outright fruad is pretty
rare.

I'm going to try to make up for all your problems, Chuck. The wife and I
will be voting for Obama in about 15 minutes!
--
John H- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Good for you, John.

While I have not yet decided whether I would support McCain in a
contest vs. Obama I haven't ruled it out- not by a long ways. (I
definitely prefer McCain to Hillary Clinton). Nice to see folks who
are open minded enough to cross party lines. If I were part of a
political party, I'd like to think I would do the same when conditions
warranted. Everybody making their most carefully considered individual
choice is how we wind up with (hopefully) the best overall collective
choice.

--------------

Why anyone would vote for someone promising to raise taxes, increase the
size of government, expand entitlement programs and force their health
insurance plan on us is beyond me.

Why anyone would vote for someone not offering any solutions or plans, yet
talking a big game is beyond me.

One thing I do know...........the guy sure knows how to convince some
(many?) that they should vote for him despite those promises and despite the
lack of plans or solutions.........another Great and Powerful Oz!

Maybe it is because Obama is such an eloquent speaker............a very
powerful tool after listening to Dubya these past 7+ years.

My oh my!- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

In my opinion, Obama is doing fairly well right now for a variety of
reasons.

As you mentioned, he is an excellent speaker. While McCain and Clinton
are both well-spoken, Obama seems to be up a level or so beyond
standard political speech making. (As opposed to GWB who is at least
slighty below average in this category).

As much as anything else, I think people are finally sick to death of
"politics as usual." The prospect of electing a Clinton seems like
moving the clock back to the 1990's, not ahead into the 2010's. McCain
is an honorable and capable politician, but that may be his major
stumbling block- he's a career politican.

Whatever else, we can't keep trying to pull the middle of the country
to the far left or far right and thinking of fellow Americans as "the
enemy".
If any of these candidates can attact a new, centrist plurality that
crosses traditional party lines that would likely be very good for he
country.

Just think, Jim.....there's a possiblity that two guys as politically
opposite as you and I might even vote for the same candidate in Nov.
Who'da imagined such a thing at this time last year? Â*:-)- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I did see an interesting group of undecided democrat voters in a live
poll last night. Not a bunch of loaded questions with a loaded group
either. Anyway, it was interesting as they answered questions about
Billary and Obama. Several things came out. They all think Obama
stands a better chance, but Billary has more experience. To the last
one everyone said they would cross over, just as long as the democrat
wins. Another interesting question was, what has Obama done that would
qualify him to run the country. One said he was black, another said he
had been elected to congress, another said he stood for hope, but not
one person in the room could qualify him beyond that... It was a very
interesting question and answer with real undecides, and relevant,
unloaded questions... very interesting.

On Tue, 12 Feb 2008 12:37:21 -0800 (PST), Chuck Gould
wrote:

On Feb 12, 9:17?am, John H. wrote:
On Tue, 12 Feb 2008 09:07:09 -0800 (PST), Chuck Gould





wrote:
On Feb 12, 7:37?am, "Don White" wrote:
While flippin' channels yesterday, I breezed through CNN.
There was some king of panel with Wolfe Blitzer, that tall lanky guy, Jack
McClafferty? and a couple others.
They were talking about some voting irregularities in Washington (state?) by
the Republicans. ?Apparantly, the people counting the ballots figured they
could predict the outcome at a certain point in their counting..so packed it
in before finishing. ?What the &*^?
Canada may have to start sending down observers to make sure things are run
on the up & up. Afterall someone has to help protect that fledging democracy
you'all call the U.S.of A.

And here's the irony;

Our current state governor (a D) was elected by a margin of a couple
of hundred votes, maybe less. With over a million votes to count, our
state law requires a recount if the margin is less than percent or so.
The quick and dirty first count showed the Republican winning by a
very slim margin. The recount reversed the outcome, with some errors
in the state's largest county (also the most extremely D county) being
discovered. Even though there were at least a few errors in virtually
*every* county in the state, the R team focused on the errors found in
the most urban county and began screaming "Vote Fraud! The count has
been rigged in the liberal county to change the outcome!!"

Roll the clock forward to the Republican primary; With 80-some percent
of the votes counted the officially "preferred" Republican candidate
had a narrow lead. Rather than risk any change in the desired outcome,
the R's decided to simply *stop counting* the rest of the ballots!
(Vote fraud, indeed). Huckabee's legal team put enough pressure on the
state party that counting resumed. It didn't change the outcome, but
it sure took the wind out of the R party sails for the next time they
lose by a narrow amount and want to claim there were irregularities in
the count.

I guess 99.99% accurate is only an acceptable standard if the final
totals reflect the results wanted. Errors are made in favor of as well
as against both sides in every count, but outright fruad is pretty
rare.

I'm going to try to make up for all your problems, Chuck. The wife and I
will be voting for Obama in about 15 minutes!
--
John H- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Good for you, John.

While I have not yet decided whether I would support McCain in a
contest vs. Obama I haven't ruled it out- not by a long ways. (I
definitely prefer McCain to Hillary Clinton). Nice to see folks who
are open minded enough to cross party lines. If I were part of a
political party, I'd like to think I would do the same when conditions
warranted. Everybody making their most carefully considered individual
choice is how we wind up with (hopefully) the best overall collective
choice.

Well, I'd definitely not vote for Obama in the general election. I'd hate
to do that to the USA. But, if McCain should lose in the general, I'd much
rather look at Obama for the next four years than Hillary and Billy.
--
John H

On Tue, 12 Feb 2008 13:42:37 -0800 (PST),
wrote:

On Feb 12, 4:36*pm, Chuck Gould wrote:
On Feb 12, 1:08?pm, "JimH" wrote:





"Chuck Gould" wrote in message

...
On Feb 12, 9:17?am, John H. wrote:

On Tue, 12 Feb 2008 09:07:09 -0800 (PST), Chuck Gould

wrote:
On Feb 12, 7:37?am, "Don White" wrote:
While flippin' channels yesterday, I breezed through CNN.
There was some king of panel with Wolfe Blitzer, that tall lanky guy,
Jack
McClafferty? and a couple others.
They were talking about some voting irregularities in Washington
(state?) by
the Republicans. ?Apparantly, the people counting the ballots figured
they
could predict the outcome at a certain point in their counting..so
packed it
in before finishing. ?What the &*^?
Canada may have to start sending down observers to make sure things are
run
on the up & up. Afterall someone has to help protect that fledging
democracy
you'all call the U.S.of A.

And here's the irony;

Our current state governor (a D) was elected by a margin of a couple
of hundred votes, maybe less. With over a million votes to count, our
state law requires a recount if the margin is less than percent or so.
The quick and dirty first count showed the Republican winning by a
very slim margin. The recount reversed the outcome, with some errors
in the state's largest county (also the most extremely D county) being
discovered. Even though there were at least a few errors in virtually
*every* county in the state, the R team focused on the errors found in
the most urban county and began screaming "Vote Fraud! The count has
been rigged in the liberal county to change the outcome!!"

Roll the clock forward to the Republican primary; With 80-some percent
of the votes counted the officially "preferred" Republican candidate
had a narrow lead. Rather than risk any change in the desired outcome,
the R's decided to simply *stop counting* the rest of the ballots!
(Vote fraud, indeed). Huckabee's legal team put enough pressure on the
state party that counting resumed. It didn't change the outcome, but
it sure took the wind out of the R party sails for the next time they
lose by a narrow amount and want to claim there were irregularities in
the count.

I guess 99.99% accurate is only an acceptable standard if the final
totals reflect the results wanted. Errors are made in favor of as well
as against both sides in every count, but outright fruad is pretty
rare.

I'm going to try to make up for all your problems, Chuck. The wife and I
will be voting for Obama in about 15 minutes!
--
John H- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Good for you, John.

While I have not yet decided whether I would support McCain in a
contest vs. Obama I haven't ruled it out- not by a long ways. (I
definitely prefer McCain to Hillary Clinton). Nice to see folks who
are open minded enough to cross party lines. If I were part of a
political party, I'd like to think I would do the same when conditions
warranted. Everybody making their most carefully considered individual
choice is how we wind up with (hopefully) the best overall collective
choice.

--------------

Why anyone would vote for someone promising to raise taxes, increase the
size of government, expand entitlement programs and force their health
insurance plan on us is beyond me.

Why anyone would vote for someone not offering any solutions or plans, yet
talking a big game is beyond me.

One thing I do know...........the guy sure knows how to convince some
(many?) that they should vote for him despite those promises and despite the
lack of plans or solutions.........another Great and Powerful Oz!

Maybe it is because Obama is such an eloquent speaker............a very
powerful tool after listening to Dubya these past 7+ years.

My oh my!- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

In my opinion, Obama is doing fairly well right now for a variety of
reasons.

As you mentioned, he is an excellent speaker. While McCain and Clinton
are both well-spoken, Obama seems to be up a level or so beyond
standard political speech making. (As opposed to GWB who is at least
slighty below average in this category).

As much as anything else, I think people are finally sick to death of
"politics as usual." The prospect of electing a Clinton seems like
moving the clock back to the 1990's, not ahead into the 2010's. McCain
is an honorable and capable politician, but that may be his major
stumbling block- he's a career politican.

Whatever else, we can't keep trying to pull the middle of the country
to the far left or far right and thinking of fellow Americans as "the
enemy".
If any of these candidates can attact a new, centrist plurality that
crosses traditional party lines that would likely be very good for he
country.

Just think, Jim.....there's a possiblity that two guys as politically
opposite as you and I might even vote for the same candidate in Nov.
Who'da imagined such a thing at this time last year? *:-)- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I did see an interesting group of undecided democrat voters in a live
poll last night. Not a bunch of loaded questions with a loaded group
either. Anyway, it was interesting as they answered questions about
Billary and Obama. Several things came out. They all think Obama
stands a better chance, but Billary has more experience. To the last
one everyone said they would cross over, just as long as the democrat
wins. Another interesting question was, what has Obama done that would
qualify him to run the country. One said he was black, another said he
had been elected to congress, another said he stood for hope, but not
one person in the room could qualify him beyond that... It was a very
interesting question and answer with real undecides, and relevant,
unloaded questions... very interesting.

Which, along with bigotry, are all reasons I think Obama would lose to
McCain in the general election.

At least one liberal right here has demonstrated his bigotry. I think it's
spread much further than he and the Clintons.
--
John H

Don White wrote:

While flippin' channels yesterday, I breezed through CNN.
There was some king of panel with Wolfe Blitzer, that tall lanky guy, Jack
McClafferty? and a couple others.
They were talking about some voting irregularities in Washington (state?) by
the Republicans. Apparantly, the people counting the ballots figured they
could predict the outcome at a certain point in their counting..so packed it
in before finishing. What the &*^?
Canada may have to start sending down observers to make sure things are run
on the up & up. Afterall someone has to help protect that fledging democracy
you'all call the U.S.of A.

Statistics. You don't need to know how *everybody* voted. So if you
have a statistically significant sample, that's enough.

So, if you took a statistically significant sample of the *original*
sample, you wouldn't have count all of *them*, either.

So, if you took...well, you see where I'm going with this. We really
only need to count one vote, then we can extrapolate from there.

DT