Big Kahunas

In article jWHCb.382382$ao4.1274100@attbi_s51, "Gary L. Drescher"
writes:


Jay has apparently managed to convince himself that the extent of a
candidate's mandate is better measured by the number of *acres* that voted
for the candidate than by the number of *people* that voted for the
candidate. When he stays the "country" overwhelmingly supported Bush, he's
referring to the country's landmass rather than its population.


Actually, Jay's map does tell us a great deal about the vote.

Those areas that produce more than they consume and pay more in taxes than they
receive in federal funds voted for Bush and those that suck at the Federal teat
voted for Gore.

Big surprise.

Don

--
Wm. Donald (Don) Tabor Jr., DDS
PP-ASEL
Chesapeake, VA - CPK, PVG

Actually, Jay's map does tell us a great deal about the vote.

Those areas that produce more than they consume and pay more in taxes than
they
receive in federal funds voted for Bush and those that suck at the Federal
teat
voted for Gore.

Big surprise.

Don

--
Wm. Donald (Don) Tabor Jr., DDS
PP-ASEL
Chesapeake, VA - CPK, PVG

A strikingly bold statement backed by vague generalities.

- Carl -


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.550 / Virus Database: 342 - Release Date: 12/9/2003

"Wdtabor" wrote in message
...
In article jWHCb.382382$ao4.1274100@attbi_s51, "Gary L. Drescher"
writes:

Jay has apparently managed to convince himself that the extent of a
candidate's mandate is better measured by the number of *acres* that
voted
for the candidate than by the number of *people* that voted for the
candidate. When he says the "country" overwhelmingly supported Bush,
he's
referring to the country's landmass rather than its population.

Actually, Jay's map does tell us a great deal about the vote.

Yes, but not what he claims it tells us.

Those areas that produce more than they consume and pay more in taxes than
they
receive in federal funds voted for Bush and those that suck at the Federal
teat
voted for Gore.

Yeah right. Seattle, New York, Boston, most of New England, and the coast
of California are notoriously unproductive areas. Why, the national economy
would scarcely notice if those places just disappeared.

In article GmOCb.384252$ao4.1281670@attbi_s51, "Gary L. Drescher"
writes:

Those areas that produce more than they consume and pay more in taxes than
they
receive in federal funds voted for Bush and those that suck at the Federal
teat
voted for Gore.

Yeah right. Seattle, New York, Boston, most of New England, and the coast
of California are notoriously unproductive areas. Why, the national economy
would scarcely notice if those places just disappeared.



What economic activity those cities have is the result of their being ports
that get their cut by shipping what the rest of the nation produces. They
produce very little and exist on banking, shipping and commerce of the goods
grown and produced elsewhere.

If they disappeared tomorrow, fell off into the sea, we would build new ports
and go on. If, instead, they were cut off from the rest of of the country,
people would be starving within a week.

Don

--
Wm. Donald (Don) Tabor Jr., DDS
PP-ASEL
Chesapeake, VA - CPK, PVG

"Wdtabor" wrote in message
...
In article GmOCb.384252$ao4.1281670@attbi_s51, "Gary L. Drescher"
writes:

Those areas that produce more than they consume and pay more in taxes
than
they
receive in federal funds voted for Bush and those that suck at the
Federal
teat
voted for Gore.

Yeah right. Seattle, New York, Boston, most of New England, and the
coast
of California are notoriously unproductive areas. Why, the national
economy
would scarcely notice if those places just disappeared.

What economic activity those cities have is the result of their being
ports
that get their cut by shipping what the rest of the nation produces. They
produce very little and exist on banking, shipping and commerce of the
goods
grown and produced elsewhere.

Uh, right. Banking, shipping and commerce are not productive activities.
Unlike farming, those endeavors just take advantage of nearby natural
resources. And the New England and West Coast's computer industry and
biotechnology industry (and the massive educational infrastructure needed to
support high tech) are not productive or economically significant.

It's astonishing what lengths some folks go to in order to try to make
reality fit their worldview.

--Gary

Actually, Jay's map does tell us a great deal about the vote.

First, it's not "Jay's map" -- it was published by USA Today.

Jay has apparently managed to convince himself that the extent of a
candidate's mandate is better measured by the number of *acres* that
voted
for the candidate than by the number of *people* that voted for the
candidate. When he stays the "country" overwhelmingly supported Bush,
he's
referring to the country's landmass rather than its population.

The map shows many things. First, the vast majority of citizens with
old-fashioned American values voted for Bush. Having worked and lived in big
cities for the majority of my life, I can vouch for the fact that very
little of traditional America survives in the mindless, soulless wasteland
of the inner cities. The fact that these areas recurrently (and
dim-wittedly) vote for any Democrat that runs means little to me. Or to the
Electoral College. Or to the Supreme Court.

The vast majority of productive Americans voted for Bush.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

The map shows many things. First, the vast majority of citizens with
old-fashioned American values voted for Bush.

Jay, once again. Other than there being more red than blue, how does this
map support that? You have taken an opinion and projected it onto data
which shows something else entirely. A true statement about that map
would be, a majority (not necessarily vast) of voters in a majority of
counties voted for Bush, no more, no less.



Having worked and lived in big
cities for the majority of my life, I can vouch for the fact that very
little of traditional America survives in the mindless, soulless wasteland
of the inner cities. The fact that these areas recurrently (and
dim-wittedly) vote for any Democrat that runs means little to me. Or to
the
Electoral College. Or to the Supreme Court.

The vast majority of productive Americans voted for Bush.

Also, a conclusion that could be drawn from your observation is that you
believe that there are no Democrats in "middle America".

I have asked for facts, you have offered opinion. I expected more.

- Carl -

---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.550 / Virus Database: 342 - Release Date: 12/9/2003

On 13 Dec 2003 22:41:09 GMT ackatyu (Wdtabor) wrote:

In article jWHCb.382382$ao4.1274100@attbi_s51, "Gary L. Drescher"
writes:


Jay has apparently managed to convince himself that the extent of a
candidate's mandate is better measured by the number of *acres* that voted
for the candidate than by the number of *people* that voted for the
candidate. When he stays the "country" overwhelmingly supported Bush, he's
referring to the country's landmass rather than its population.


Actually, Jay's map does tell us a great deal about the vote.

Those areas that produce more than they consume and pay more in taxes than they
receive in federal funds voted for Bush and those that suck at the Federal teat
voted for Gore.

That's complete nonsense. Nice try.

Don't forget Dubya has yet to turn down a spending bill in his 3 years in office.
That sure doesn't jibe with your contention.

R. Hubbell


Big surprise.

Don

--
Wm. Donald (Don) Tabor Jr., DDS
PP-ASEL
Chesapeake, VA - CPK, PVG

Don't forget Dubya has yet to turn down a spending bill in his 3 years in
office.
That sure doesn't jibe with your contention.

Well, now you're one a different subject entirely -- and one in which I
TOTALLY agree with you.

Bush is no fiscal conservative, and, as a result, will probably lose my
vote.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Well, now you're one a different subject entirely -- and one in which I
TOTALLY agree with you.

Bush is no fiscal conservative, and, as a result, will probably lose my
vote.

To whom?

I am also disappointed that Bush has not held the line on domestic spending,
but is there any reason to believe that Dean will spend any less?

I will be speaking to Gary Nolan next weekend, the most likely Libertarian
candidate, but he is so far out on the War on Terror that I cannot support him
unless he moderates on that issue.

Don


--
Wm. Donald (Don) Tabor Jr., DDS
PP-ASEL
Chesapeake, VA - CPK, PVG