Turd Blossom
Dec 12th 2004, 4:55 pm
#16
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Turd Blossom
john wrote:
>
> On Sat, 11 Dec 2004 17:35:10 GMT, CJS <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >john wrote:
> >>
> >> On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 11:43:38 -0600, [email protected] (Paul
> >> Brandon) wrote:
> >>
> >> >>Some factoids:
> >> >
> >> >someting like a fact?
> >> >
> >> >>2000 2004 % Increase
> >> >>Bush 50,456,169 59,459,765 17.8%
> >> >>Democrat 50,996,116 55,949,407 9.7%
> >> >>
> >> >>Population 281,421,906 294,719,604 4.7%
> >> >>
> >> >>Much of the Democrat gain is explained by simple
> >> >>population growth. Bush's gain isn't.
> >> >
> >> >Sounds like Afghanistan, where 110% of eligible voters cast ballots ;-)
> >> >* PAUL K. BRANDON [email protected] *
> >> >* Psychology Dept Minnesota State University *
> >>
> >> Bush's gain is from the right wing evanglical Christians who voted for
> >> the three G's:
> >>
> >> God, Gays, and Guns.
> >
> >Actually, the Economist took a look, and the evangelical vote wasn't
> >where the gains were.
>
> Oh yes, we must believe whatever the Economist prints.
Hmmm. World-respected magazine (that endorsed Kerry, BTW) versus
anonymous loon.
> How did the Economist come to their wonderful conclusion?
Surveys???
> Did they locate each and every voter and ask them the question?
Jesus wept.
> Did the Economist figure that when the Republicans got a gay marriage
> initiative on various state ballots that it had no effect on bringing
> out the right-wing Christian voters?
I'm sure it helped, but the evangelicals were already out in force.
Plus, those initiatives (which, BTW, I am against) won by a landslide.
If it was the small evangelical class in America, how did that happen?
Cheers...Craig
craig(underscore)[email protected] O M
http://www.vabene.net
---
I'm not dumb. I just have a command of thoroughly useless
information.
- Calvin (and Hobbes)
All I want is a warm bed and a kind word and unlimited
power.
- Ashleigh Brilliant
I like long walks, especially when they are taken by people
who annoy me.
- Fred Allen
>
> On Sat, 11 Dec 2004 17:35:10 GMT, CJS <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >john wrote:
> >>
> >> On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 11:43:38 -0600, [email protected] (Paul
> >> Brandon) wrote:
> >>
> >> >>Some factoids:
> >> >
> >> >someting like a fact?
> >> >
> >> >>2000 2004 % Increase
> >> >>Bush 50,456,169 59,459,765 17.8%
> >> >>Democrat 50,996,116 55,949,407 9.7%
> >> >>
> >> >>Population 281,421,906 294,719,604 4.7%
> >> >>
> >> >>Much of the Democrat gain is explained by simple
> >> >>population growth. Bush's gain isn't.
> >> >
> >> >Sounds like Afghanistan, where 110% of eligible voters cast ballots ;-)
> >> >* PAUL K. BRANDON [email protected] *
> >> >* Psychology Dept Minnesota State University *
> >>
> >> Bush's gain is from the right wing evanglical Christians who voted for
> >> the three G's:
> >>
> >> God, Gays, and Guns.
> >
> >Actually, the Economist took a look, and the evangelical vote wasn't
> >where the gains were.
>
> Oh yes, we must believe whatever the Economist prints.
Hmmm. World-respected magazine (that endorsed Kerry, BTW) versus
anonymous loon.
> How did the Economist come to their wonderful conclusion?
Surveys???
> Did they locate each and every voter and ask them the question?
Jesus wept.
> Did the Economist figure that when the Republicans got a gay marriage
> initiative on various state ballots that it had no effect on bringing
> out the right-wing Christian voters?
I'm sure it helped, but the evangelicals were already out in force.
Plus, those initiatives (which, BTW, I am against) won by a landslide.
If it was the small evangelical class in America, how did that happen?
Cheers...Craig
craig(underscore)[email protected] O M
http://www.vabene.net
---
I'm not dumb. I just have a command of thoroughly useless
information.
- Calvin (and Hobbes)
All I want is a warm bed and a kind word and unlimited
power.
- Ashleigh Brilliant
I like long walks, especially when they are taken by people
who annoy me.
- Fred Allen
Dec 12th 2004, 9:46 pm
#17
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Turd Blossom
On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 05:55:54 GMT, CJS <[email protected]> wrote:
>john wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, 11 Dec 2004 17:35:10 GMT, CJS <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >john wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 11:43:38 -0600, [email protected] (Paul
>> >> Brandon) wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >>Some factoids:
>> >> >
>> >> >someting like a fact?
>> >> >
>> >> >>2000 2004 % Increase
>> >> >>Bush 50,456,169 59,459,765 17.8%
>> >> >>Democrat 50,996,116 55,949,407 9.7%
>> >> >>
>> >> >>Population 281,421,906 294,719,604 4.7%
>> >> >>
>> >> >>Much of the Democrat gain is explained by simple
>> >> >>population growth. Bush's gain isn't.
>> >> >
>> >> >Sounds like Afghanistan, where 110% of eligible voters cast ballots ;-)
>> >> >* PAUL K. BRANDON [email protected] *
>> >> >* Psychology Dept Minnesota State University *
>> >>
>> >> Bush's gain is from the right wing evanglical Christians who voted for
>> >> the three G's:
>> >>
>> >> God, Gays, and Guns.
>> >
>> >Actually, the Economist took a look, and the evangelical vote wasn't
>> >where the gains were.
>>
>> Oh yes, we must believe whatever the Economist prints.
>Hmmm. World-respected magazine (that endorsed Kerry, BTW) versus
>anonymous loon.
>> How did the Economist come to their wonderful conclusion?
not to mention the fact the name of the publication itself would provide a hint.
what with the US dollar running close to 2:1 on the UK pound and looking to drop
further still (likely to hit $2.30 to the UK pound)...
...the US dollar has even devalued against the Zimbabwe dollar - with an
official inflation rate of 700% last time I checked.
>john wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, 11 Dec 2004 17:35:10 GMT, CJS <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >john wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 11:43:38 -0600, [email protected] (Paul
>> >> Brandon) wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >>Some factoids:
>> >> >
>> >> >someting like a fact?
>> >> >
>> >> >>2000 2004 % Increase
>> >> >>Bush 50,456,169 59,459,765 17.8%
>> >> >>Democrat 50,996,116 55,949,407 9.7%
>> >> >>
>> >> >>Population 281,421,906 294,719,604 4.7%
>> >> >>
>> >> >>Much of the Democrat gain is explained by simple
>> >> >>population growth. Bush's gain isn't.
>> >> >
>> >> >Sounds like Afghanistan, where 110% of eligible voters cast ballots ;-)
>> >> >* PAUL K. BRANDON [email protected] *
>> >> >* Psychology Dept Minnesota State University *
>> >>
>> >> Bush's gain is from the right wing evanglical Christians who voted for
>> >> the three G's:
>> >>
>> >> God, Gays, and Guns.
>> >
>> >Actually, the Economist took a look, and the evangelical vote wasn't
>> >where the gains were.
>>
>> Oh yes, we must believe whatever the Economist prints.
>Hmmm. World-respected magazine (that endorsed Kerry, BTW) versus
>anonymous loon.
>> How did the Economist come to their wonderful conclusion?
not to mention the fact the name of the publication itself would provide a hint.
what with the US dollar running close to 2:1 on the UK pound and looking to drop
further still (likely to hit $2.30 to the UK pound)...
...the US dollar has even devalued against the Zimbabwe dollar - with an
official inflation rate of 700% last time I checked.
Dec 13th 2004, 4:23 am
#18
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Turd Blossom
On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 05:55:54 GMT, CJS <[email protected]> wrote:
>john wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, 11 Dec 2004 17:35:10 GMT, CJS <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >john wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 11:43:38 -0600, [email protected] (Paul
>> >> Brandon) wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >>Some factoids:
>> >> >
>> >> >someting like a fact?
>> >> >
>> >> >>2000 2004 % Increase
>> >> >>Bush 50,456,169 59,459,765 17.8%
>> >> >>Democrat 50,996,116 55,949,407 9.7%
>> >> >>
>> >> >>Population 281,421,906 294,719,604 4.7%
>> >> >>
>> >> >>Much of the Democrat gain is explained by simple
>> >> >>population growth. Bush's gain isn't.
>> >> >
>> >> >Sounds like Afghanistan, where 110% of eligible voters cast ballots ;-)
>> >> >* PAUL K. BRANDON [email protected] *
>> >> >* Psychology Dept Minnesota State University *
>> >>
>> >> Bush's gain is from the right wing evanglical Christians who voted for
>> >> the three G's:
>> >>
>> >> God, Gays, and Guns.
>> >
>> >Actually, the Economist took a look, and the evangelical vote wasn't
>> >where the gains were.
>>
>> Oh yes, we must believe whatever the Economist prints.
>Hmmm. World-respected magazine (that endorsed Kerry, BTW) versus
>anonymous loon.
>> How did the Economist come to their wonderful conclusion?
>Surveys???
Good guess. But describe who,how,and when the surveys were performed.
>
>> Did they locate each and every voter and ask them the question?
>Jesus wept.
????? Is this some religious rant?
>
>> Did the Economist figure that when the Republicans got a gay marriage
>> initiative on various state ballots that it had no effect on bringing
>> out the right-wing Christian voters?
>I'm sure it helped, but the evangelicals were already out in force.
>Plus, those initiatives (which, BTW, I am against) won by a landslide.
>If it was the small evangelical class in America, how did that happen?
The initiative brought out large numbers of Christian voters not just
evangelicals .
>Cheers...Craig
>craig(underscore)[email protected] O M
>http://www.vabene.net
>---
>I'm not dumb. I just have a command of thoroughly useless
>information.
>- Calvin (and Hobbes)
>All I want is a warm bed and a kind word and unlimited
>power.
>- Ashleigh Brilliant
>I like long walks, especially when they are taken by people
>who annoy me.
>- Fred Allen
>john wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, 11 Dec 2004 17:35:10 GMT, CJS <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >john wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 11:43:38 -0600, [email protected] (Paul
>> >> Brandon) wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >>Some factoids:
>> >> >
>> >> >someting like a fact?
>> >> >
>> >> >>2000 2004 % Increase
>> >> >>Bush 50,456,169 59,459,765 17.8%
>> >> >>Democrat 50,996,116 55,949,407 9.7%
>> >> >>
>> >> >>Population 281,421,906 294,719,604 4.7%
>> >> >>
>> >> >>Much of the Democrat gain is explained by simple
>> >> >>population growth. Bush's gain isn't.
>> >> >
>> >> >Sounds like Afghanistan, where 110% of eligible voters cast ballots ;-)
>> >> >* PAUL K. BRANDON [email protected] *
>> >> >* Psychology Dept Minnesota State University *
>> >>
>> >> Bush's gain is from the right wing evanglical Christians who voted for
>> >> the three G's:
>> >>
>> >> God, Gays, and Guns.
>> >
>> >Actually, the Economist took a look, and the evangelical vote wasn't
>> >where the gains were.
>>
>> Oh yes, we must believe whatever the Economist prints.
>Hmmm. World-respected magazine (that endorsed Kerry, BTW) versus
>anonymous loon.
>> How did the Economist come to their wonderful conclusion?
>Surveys???
Good guess. But describe who,how,and when the surveys were performed.
>
>> Did they locate each and every voter and ask them the question?
>Jesus wept.
????? Is this some religious rant?
>
>> Did the Economist figure that when the Republicans got a gay marriage
>> initiative on various state ballots that it had no effect on bringing
>> out the right-wing Christian voters?
>I'm sure it helped, but the evangelicals were already out in force.
>Plus, those initiatives (which, BTW, I am against) won by a landslide.
>If it was the small evangelical class in America, how did that happen?
The initiative brought out large numbers of Christian voters not just
evangelicals .
>Cheers...Craig
>craig(underscore)[email protected] O M
>http://www.vabene.net
>---
>I'm not dumb. I just have a command of thoroughly useless
>information.
>- Calvin (and Hobbes)
>All I want is a warm bed and a kind word and unlimited
>power.
>- Ashleigh Brilliant
>I like long walks, especially when they are taken by people
>who annoy me.
>- Fred Allen
Dec 13th 2004, 11:29 pm
#19
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Turd Blossom
"CJS" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> john wrote:
>> On Sat, 11 Dec 2004 17:35:10 GMT, CJS <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >john wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 11:43:38 -0600, [email protected] (Paul
>> >> Brandon) wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >>Some factoids:
>> >> >
>> >> >someting like a fact?
>> >> >
>> >> >>2000 2004 % Increase
>> >> >>Bush 50,456,169 59,459,765 17.8%
>> >> >>Democrat 50,996,116 55,949,407 9.7%
>> >> >>
>> >> >>Population 281,421,906 294,719,604 4.7%
>> >> >>
>> >> >>Much of the Democrat gain is explained by simple
>> >> >>population growth. Bush's gain isn't.
>> >> >
>> >> >Sounds like Afghanistan, where 110% of eligible voters cast ballots
>> >> >;-)
>> >> >* PAUL K. BRANDON [email protected] *
>> >> >* Psychology Dept Minnesota State University *
>> >>
>> >> Bush's gain is from the right wing evanglical Christians who voted for
>> >> the three G's:
>> >>
>> >> God, Gays, and Guns.
>> >
>> >Actually, the Economist took a look, and the evangelical vote wasn't
>> >where the gains were.
>> Oh yes, we must believe whatever the Economist prints.
> Hmmm. World-respected magazine (that endorsed Kerry, BTW) versus
> anonymous loon.
Right. Even that old libertarian left voice Gore Vidal called it the best
choice for accuracy, that while he did not agree with most of the
conclusions of The Economist he fully respected it for its core integrity.
John
>> How did the Economist come to their wonderful conclusion?
> Surveys???
>> Did they locate each and every voter and ask them the question?
> Jesus wept.
>> Did the Economist figure that when the Republicans got a gay marriage
>> initiative on various state ballots that it had no effect on bringing
>> out the right-wing Christian voters?
> I'm sure it helped, but the evangelicals were already out in force.
> Plus, those initiatives (which, BTW, I am against) won by a landslide.
> If it was the small evangelical class in America, how did that happen?
> Cheers...Craig
> craig(underscore)[email protected] O M
> http://www.vabene.net
> ---
> I'm not dumb. I just have a command of thoroughly useless
> information.
> - Calvin (and Hobbes)
> All I want is a warm bed and a kind word and unlimited
> power.
> - Ashleigh Brilliant
> I like long walks, especially when they are taken by people
> who annoy me.
> - Fred Allen
> john wrote:
>> On Sat, 11 Dec 2004 17:35:10 GMT, CJS <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >john wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 11:43:38 -0600, [email protected] (Paul
>> >> Brandon) wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >>Some factoids:
>> >> >
>> >> >someting like a fact?
>> >> >
>> >> >>2000 2004 % Increase
>> >> >>Bush 50,456,169 59,459,765 17.8%
>> >> >>Democrat 50,996,116 55,949,407 9.7%
>> >> >>
>> >> >>Population 281,421,906 294,719,604 4.7%
>> >> >>
>> >> >>Much of the Democrat gain is explained by simple
>> >> >>population growth. Bush's gain isn't.
>> >> >
>> >> >Sounds like Afghanistan, where 110% of eligible voters cast ballots
>> >> >;-)
>> >> >* PAUL K. BRANDON [email protected] *
>> >> >* Psychology Dept Minnesota State University *
>> >>
>> >> Bush's gain is from the right wing evanglical Christians who voted for
>> >> the three G's:
>> >>
>> >> God, Gays, and Guns.
>> >
>> >Actually, the Economist took a look, and the evangelical vote wasn't
>> >where the gains were.
>> Oh yes, we must believe whatever the Economist prints.
> Hmmm. World-respected magazine (that endorsed Kerry, BTW) versus
> anonymous loon.
Right. Even that old libertarian left voice Gore Vidal called it the best
choice for accuracy, that while he did not agree with most of the
conclusions of The Economist he fully respected it for its core integrity.
John
>> How did the Economist come to their wonderful conclusion?
> Surveys???
>> Did they locate each and every voter and ask them the question?
> Jesus wept.
>> Did the Economist figure that when the Republicans got a gay marriage
>> initiative on various state ballots that it had no effect on bringing
>> out the right-wing Christian voters?
> I'm sure it helped, but the evangelicals were already out in force.
> Plus, those initiatives (which, BTW, I am against) won by a landslide.
> If it was the small evangelical class in America, how did that happen?
> Cheers...Craig
> craig(underscore)[email protected] O M
> http://www.vabene.net
> ---
> I'm not dumb. I just have a command of thoroughly useless
> information.
> - Calvin (and Hobbes)
> All I want is a warm bed and a kind word and unlimited
> power.
> - Ashleigh Brilliant
> I like long walks, especially when they are taken by people
> who annoy me.
> - Fred Allen
Dec 14th 2004, 11:21 am
#20
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Turd Blossom
John Smith wrote:
>
> "CJS" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> >
> >
> > john wrote:
> >>
> >> On Sat, 11 Dec 2004 17:35:10 GMT, CJS <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >john wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 11:43:38 -0600, [email protected] (Paul
> >> >> Brandon) wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >>Some factoids:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >someting like a fact?
> >> >> >
> >> >> >>2000 2004 % Increase
> >> >> >>Bush 50,456,169 59,459,765 17.8%
> >> >> >>Democrat 50,996,116 55,949,407 9.7%
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>Population 281,421,906 294,719,604 4.7%
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>Much of the Democrat gain is explained by simple
> >> >> >>population growth. Bush's gain isn't.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Sounds like Afghanistan, where 110% of eligible voters cast ballots
> >> >> >;-)
> >> >> >* PAUL K. BRANDON [email protected] *
> >> >> >* Psychology Dept Minnesota State University *
> >> >>
> >> >> Bush's gain is from the right wing evanglical Christians who voted for
> >> >> the three G's:
> >> >>
> >> >> God, Gays, and Guns.
> >> >
> >> >Actually, the Economist took a look, and the evangelical vote wasn't
> >> >where the gains were.
> >>
> >> Oh yes, we must believe whatever the Economist prints.
> >
> > Hmmm. World-respected magazine (that endorsed Kerry, BTW) versus
> > anonymous loon.
>
> Right. Even that old libertarian left voice Gore Vidal called it the best
> choice for accuracy, that while he did not agree with most of the
> conclusions of The Economist he fully respected it for its core integrity.
I'd agree. They at least have a framework for thinking through the
issues, and I can respect that.
Cheers...Craig
craig(underscore)[email protected] O M
http://www.vabene.net
---
I'm not dumb. I just have a command of thoroughly useless
information.
- Calvin (and Hobbes)
All I want is a warm bed and a kind word and unlimited
power.
- Ashleigh Brilliant
I like long walks, especially when they are taken by people
who annoy me.
- Fred Allen
>
> "CJS" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> >
> >
> > john wrote:
> >>
> >> On Sat, 11 Dec 2004 17:35:10 GMT, CJS <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >john wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 11:43:38 -0600, [email protected] (Paul
> >> >> Brandon) wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >>Some factoids:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >someting like a fact?
> >> >> >
> >> >> >>2000 2004 % Increase
> >> >> >>Bush 50,456,169 59,459,765 17.8%
> >> >> >>Democrat 50,996,116 55,949,407 9.7%
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>Population 281,421,906 294,719,604 4.7%
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>Much of the Democrat gain is explained by simple
> >> >> >>population growth. Bush's gain isn't.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Sounds like Afghanistan, where 110% of eligible voters cast ballots
> >> >> >;-)
> >> >> >* PAUL K. BRANDON [email protected] *
> >> >> >* Psychology Dept Minnesota State University *
> >> >>
> >> >> Bush's gain is from the right wing evanglical Christians who voted for
> >> >> the three G's:
> >> >>
> >> >> God, Gays, and Guns.
> >> >
> >> >Actually, the Economist took a look, and the evangelical vote wasn't
> >> >where the gains were.
> >>
> >> Oh yes, we must believe whatever the Economist prints.
> >
> > Hmmm. World-respected magazine (that endorsed Kerry, BTW) versus
> > anonymous loon.
>
> Right. Even that old libertarian left voice Gore Vidal called it the best
> choice for accuracy, that while he did not agree with most of the
> conclusions of The Economist he fully respected it for its core integrity.
I'd agree. They at least have a framework for thinking through the
issues, and I can respect that.
Cheers...Craig
craig(underscore)[email protected] O M
http://www.vabene.net
---
I'm not dumb. I just have a command of thoroughly useless
information.
- Calvin (and Hobbes)
All I want is a warm bed and a kind word and unlimited
power.
- Ashleigh Brilliant
I like long walks, especially when they are taken by people
who annoy me.
- Fred Allen
