New Yorker's Sy Hersh: Bush Admin Helped Plan Israeli Offensive...

In article ,
says...
Bob Matthews wrote:

:They're certainly a bigger threat than Al Qaida. Too bad the GOP
:mouthbreathers haven't yet figured it out.

So your position is that you lot keep losing because the voters are
stupid?

That seems a rather silly statement, considering that Bush received
less than 50% of the votes in the last election.

I suppose its also possible that a majority of the voters voted for
democratic senators in the last elections---but I haven't tallied up
the votes for the big states with democratic senators and compared it
to the totals for the smaller states with republican senators.

For example, California Senator Barbara Boxer won reelection by
2.5 million votes over her republican adversary. Feinstein did
about the same. That margin of victory is about 5 times the
total population of Wyoming, which elected two republican senators
(where the winner might have gotten 25,000 more votes than the
loser).

In any case there's a strong argument that the republicans hold power
due to the oddities of the American electoral system---not because
they had the support of the majority of the voters.

Perhaps, but they're smart enough to not vote your you lot. What does
that say about you?

A comprehensible sentence would have strengthened your argument! ;-)

Mark Borgerson

On 8/16/06 9:54 AM, in article
, "Mark Borgerson"
mborgerson.at.comcast.net wrote:

In article ,
says...
Bob Matthews wrote:

:They're certainly a bigger threat than Al Qaida. Too bad the GOP
:mouthbreathers haven't yet figured it out.

So your position is that you lot keep losing because the voters are
stupid?

That seems a rather silly statement, considering that Bush received
less than 50% of the votes in the last election.

Not to put too fine a point on it, that's absolutely, irremediably,
unarguably wrong. Actually, Bush got 50.7% of the popular vote in 2004 and
was the first president since George H.W. Bush to receive a majority of the
popular vote.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_...election,_2004

I could say something about credibility here if I weren't such a nice guy.


Grey Satterfield

Mark Borgerson mborgerson.at.comcast.net wrote:

:In article ,
says...
: Bob Matthews wrote:
:
: :They're certainly a bigger threat than Al Qaida. Too bad the GOP
: :mouthbreathers haven't yet figured it out.
:
: So your position is that you lot keep losing because the voters are
: stupid?
:
:That seems a rather silly statement, considering that Bush received
:less than 50% of the votes in the last election.

Wrong. Bush received 51% of the votes in the last election.

:I suppose its also possible that a majority of the voters voted for
:democratic senators in the last elections---but I haven't tallied up
:the votes for the big states with democratic senators and compared it
:to the totals for the smaller states with republican senators.

It's irrelevant. In addition, the Democrats *LOST* four seats in
2004.

:For example, California Senator Barbara Boxer won reelection by
:2.5 million votes over her republican adversary. Feinstein did
:about the same. That margin of victory is about 5 times the
:total population of Wyoming, which elected two republican senators
where the winner might have gotten 25,000 more votes than the
:loser).

Wrong again. Wyoming didn't elect any Senators in 2004.

:In any case there's a strong argument that the republicans hold power
:due to the oddities of the American electoral system---not because
:they had the support of the majority of the voters.

No there isn't. There isn't even a weak argument for that. The
Republicans gained strength in the Senate. The Republicans gained
seats in the House. The Republicans got the majority of votes on the
national ticket.

So far all you've demonstrated is that your lot must be too stupid to
understand the basics of how American government works, if your
argument is that you only keep getting beaten because "the voters are
stupid" and "the oddities of the American electoral system" get in
your way.

: Perhaps, but they're smart enough to not vote your you lot. What does
: that say about you?
:
:A comprehensible sentence would have strengthened your argument! ;-)

Gee, a typing flame. I'm IMPRESSED.

--
"The odds get even - You blame the game.
The odds get even - The stakes are the same.
You bet your life."
-- "You Bet Your Life", Rush