Why didn't GWB join the U.S. Air Force ?

For Pete's Sake.

Come back when you get a clue.

So much for the wonderful powers of the european educational system.

Steve Swartz




"Ace" wrote in message
news
On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 13:14:01 -0400, "Leslie Swartz"
wrote:

Not what I'm saying at all.

In "The Great Republic" (NOT "Democracy") all votes are certainly not
counted.

Some by default, some by desing.

Oh By The Way- this fact of error rates in ballot counting apply to all
countries using those systems . . . not just the U.S.

So the system is flawed?

Checking watch, waiting for apology . . . checking calendar, waiting for
apology . . . yeah, right.

Steve Swartz



"Ace" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 13:08:03 -0400, "Leslie Swartz"
wrote:

And when did you acknowledge the facts aboutt he so-called "Popular
Election" results?

Still sulking, Ace?

I never sulk. When proved wrong, I admit it. I did so when corrected
on the issue of George Washington's title of General. I believed that
he had no more right than Osama bin Laden, for example, to assume the
title of General.

Ace wrote:
On Mon, 12 Jul 2004 22:18:08 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote:


"Ace" wrote in message
...

President George III joined the US Air Force after being selected as
the Air Force's commander-in-chief by a politburo of self-confessed
corrupt supreme court judges.


George Bush was elected president in accordance with the law. The
role of the USSC was only to insure that law was followed.

Is it following the law to vote along partisan lines? Or do you think
that was pure coincidence?

That cuts both ways. It should have been 9-0 in favor of Bush, but four
radical justices voted along party lines, as opposed to in accordance with
the constitution. (why is it that those who complain about voting along
party lines always miss the point that such a thing requires -both- groups
to be partisan?)

Ace wrote:
On Tue, 13 Jul 2004 01:24:12 -0500, "D. Strang"
wrote:

"Ace" wrote

Is it following the law to vote along partisan lines? Or do you
think that was pure coincidence?

Go play with your chads. Chicago and New York screwed-up by
trying to trust the Cubans to elect them. The Cubans don't like
Gore. They don't like Kerry either. The Democrats have missed the
boat down there since 1963.

Who won the popular vote?

Nobody knows. All the votes weren't even counted (including many military
absentee ballots, especially in states where one candidate won by a margin
that was greater than the number of absentee ballots). If they ever do a
popular vote, then we'll worry about it.

Ace wrote:
On Tue, 13 Jul 2004 20:02:24 -0400, "Leslie Swartz"
wrote:

So, by your own admission, in *The Great Democracy*, some people's
votes count, others don't?

When did this great Republic turn into a democracy???

Leslie Swartz wrote:
Ace:

Do your homework. Fact- not opinion, fact- is that eht so-called
"popular vote" was undecided. A statistical tie, more accurately.
We will *never* know who actually received the most votes, because:

1) Not all votes were counted. It's legal in most places to discard
votes if they won't tip the electoral scales. Therefore, in the
"Bush" states many Gore votes (and potential additional Bush votes)
were discarded, and vice versa.

The majority of which were military absentee ballots.

Ace wrote:
On Tue, 13 Jul 2004 14:19:23 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote:

It is following the law to adhere to the Constitution.
Conservatives, by definition, do that. Liberals do not.

Oh, I see. Those whose views you don't believe in don't adhere to the
law!?

No, those who do not follow the law do not have views I believe in.

"Ace" wrote
On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 16:29:00 -0500, "D. Strang"
wrote:

"Ace" wrote

So who has the greater number of votes cast in their favour? Bush or
Gore?

Bush. He had the most electoral votes.

You change the question. Who had the greater number of votes cast in
their favour?

Bush. He had 271 votes, and Gore had 266:

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0876793.html

Here's a calculator for the next election:

http://americanresearchgroup.com/ev/

From: Mike Williamson
Date: 7/13/2004 11:16 PM Central Daylight Time
Message-id:

Ace wrote:
On Tue, 13 Jul 2004 17:47:07 GMT, "Brooks Gregory"
wrote:


Is it following the law to vote along partisan lines? Or do you think
that was pure coincidence?

Go play with your chads. Chicago and New York screwed-up by
trying to trust the Cubans to elect them. The Cubans don't like Gore.
They don't like Kerry either. The Democrats have missed the boat
down there since 1963.

Who won the popular vote?

Who won the Grammy?


I see. When you find an uncomfortable question you answer with a
different question.

I'll give you a hint. George Bush wasn't the winner.

In point of fact, no one won a majority of the popular vote, nor did
they in the previous presidential election. But neither of those
tidbits are relevant to the discussion, as the President of the United
States has never been elected via a popular vote.


Gee, and all this time I thought the Electoral College was where they teach the
newly elected president where the restrooms are. How could I have been so
wrong?

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

"Leslie Swartz" wrote
WE DON'T KNOW- AND PROBABLY CAN'T EVER KNOW- WITH OUR CURRENT TECHNOLOGY
AND PROCESSES!

I know. It was Bush: 271 votes, he won (actually if I remember, he won 3 times during
recounts).