Big Kahunas

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

"Jay Honeck" wrote:
Bush is no fiscal conservative, and, as a result, will probably lose
my
vote.

Mine, too, for several reasons. But who ya gonna vote for next time?
Dean? Ick!
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

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

Wdtabor wrote:

What the market does is to manipulate the demand. The market says "You don't
*really* want *that*. Here's what you *really* want."

Actually, what it says is that if you *really* want that, it will cost you
$$$$$. But if that is too much, we can provide this instead at $$$.

Try to locate 1/2" plywood at any price in the U.S. Then take a look at how much
money the lumber industry spent lobbying Congress for the rules that prevent
Canadian companies from selling it to us. And if you don't think there's a
demand for it, bring the subject up in home repair and woodworking groups.

George Patterson
Great discoveries are not announced with "Eureka!". What's usually said is
"Hummmmm... That's interesting...."

Jay Honeck wrote:

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

Same here. If there's any decent alternative. So far, I don't see one.

George Patterson
Great discoveries are not announced with "Eureka!". What's usually said is
"Hummmmm... That's interesting...."

"Carl Ellis" wrote in message
...

"Tom" wrote in message
news

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
news:ja2Cb.310866$Dw6.1046389@attbi_s02...
If you do a web search you'll see reports of between 200,000 to
500,000
popular votes favoring Gore and of course an argument of what that
really
means.

Considering that an estimate 800K to 1.2M illegal aliens voted in the
2000
election, those numbers are dubious. And that's not to mention the
several
states that had very quesionable vote totals...that all got lost in the
Florida flare-up.

Do you have a reference for those numbers? I would believe some, but that
is awfully large.

It was derived from the numbers of illegals that apply for services divided
by high/low estimates from INS. I don't remember the exact source, but it
came out in May, 2001.

AAMOF, my M-I-L, who is 88, has voted in every election since 1936, after
coming over from Scotland when she was nine yers old, and has NEVER become a
US citizen (as she's now finding out the hard way as she applies for
assisted living for seniors).


Well, then let's talk about the flawed voter roll purges that occured in
both Texas and Florida.
http://dir.salon.com/politics/featur...ile/index.html

Really credible source, Salon is.

Or the shenanigans in Tennessee
http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=10589

UH HUH! Sounds like what Jessie Jackson was screeching about in Florida.


Plenty of dirt to go around.

Better find something better than anecdote for sources.


But .... the original assertion was that an overwhelming number of
Americans
voted for Bush.
Simply visit http://www.fec.gov/pubrec/2000presgeresults.htm and look at
the
tabular data, you'll see the results.

The argument is AMERICANS...and that implies ONCE, LIVING, NOT A FELON...

Consider the Nader votes anti-Bush and Buchanan anti-Gore, add up the
other
candidates if you like in a similar fashion. Nowhere near overwhelming
and
the results seem to slightly favor Gore.

I remember that in the first hours of the election returns Bush had a 54-46%
lead over Gore (at about the 35-45% of votes cast). Considering that rural
areas, Bush's strong points, are LATER in getting their numbers in,
something funky happened.

Recall the election messes that occurred in Pennsylvania, Iowa, Wisconsin,
Oregon, New Mexico, New York.

They never did look into the counties that had HUGH turnouts by dead people,
including several counties that Gore won that were very typical Bush
territory...even more votes cast than people living there (New York and
Penn.).

On 14 Dec 2003 11:48:12 GMT ackatyu (Wdtabor) wrote:

In article oSTCb.3979$pY.3084@fed1read04, "R. Hubbell"
writes:

In other words, tell them how to live and how to use their property.


No, not in other words, in those words. We teach them. You know
"give a man a fish he eats for a day, teach him, he eats for a lifetime...."
Maybe useful to add... Teach him to manage the fishery and his children and
their children eat and so on and on.


Wow! It must be nice to be so sure of your superiority.

But even if that were true, what gives you the right to direct their lives?


I guess you're done since you don't have any counterpoint.


R. Hubbell


Don

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

It was derived from the numbers of illegals that apply for services
divided
by high/low estimates from INS. I don't remember the exact source, but it
came out in May, 2001.

AAMOF, my M-I-L, who is 88, has voted in every election since 1936, after
coming over from Scotland when she was nine yers old, and has NEVER become
a
US citizen (as she's now finding out the hard way as she applies for
assisted living for seniors).


Until you have a reference and data it's supposition and unproven. It's a
pretty far stretch from applying for services to voting.



Well, then let's talk about the flawed voter roll purges that occured in
both Texas and Florida.
http://dir.salon.com/politics/featur...ile/index.html

Really credible source, Salon is.

Ok here are more references.
http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/3594763.htm
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp...nguage=printer
http://www.examiner.com/opinion/defa...editorial0522w



The argument is AMERICANS...and that implies ONCE, LIVING, NOT A FELON...

A felony conviction does not permenantly remove your right to vote. If it
were I'm sure
Admiral Poindexter would be very disappointed. If you read the article you
would see that it's not just an issue with felons, it's also just the plain
sloppy job the company did, capturing people who had no conviction. Their
selection algorithm was just plain flawed.

I remember that in the first hours of the election returns Bush had a
54-46%
lead over Gore (at about the 35-45% of votes cast). Considering that rural
areas, Bush's strong points, are LATER in getting their numbers in,
something funky happened.

Again, just conjecture.


They never did look into the counties that had HUGH turnouts by dead
people,

Data please.

including several counties that Gore won that were very typical Bush
territory

Not inconceivable.

even more votes cast than people living there (New York and
Penn.).


Live in one county, work and vote in another. References?





---
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

Carl Ellis wrote:

Live in one county, work and vote in another.

Everywhere I've lived, that was illegal.

George Patterson
Great discoveries are not announced with "Eureka!". What's usually said is
"Hummmmm... That's interesting...."