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

"Leslie Swartz" wrote in
:

You are one ignorant- or evil- SOB, Ace.

The one doesn't preclude the other.

IBM

__________________________________________________ _____________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
The Worlds Uncensored News Source

"Ace" wrote

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

Obviously you don't understand the US electoral process. Do a little
research and come back. Right now you are too ignorant to communicate
intelligently with.

"Ace" wrote

Is that the one riddled with various ad-hoc amendments, and provides
for children to kill each other with their daddy's guns with wanton
abandon?

Nope. Keep searching.

"Mike Williamson" wrote:
...
does, or ever did, have some relevance. If you want a leader elected
through direct popular vote, move to -- hmm, having a hard time
finding one. Even Castro was listed as being elected via
"legislative vote."

Mike


If you want a leader elected through direct popular vote, move to Finland!
http://www.presidentti.fi/eng/institution/

Kalle

On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 07:17:22 +0100, Ace wrote:

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

(Just a question, not a statement from this "ignorant" Limey - so
don't go having a temper tantrum.)

Ahh, an outsider commenting upon the American Constitutional process.
(Ours is written, so it's much easier to refer to than the British one
which has to be cobbled together from miscellanous ramblings of the
Parliament and the courts over centuries.)

Now, pay attention. The popular vote is not definitive in electing the
President of the United States. It is done, according to the
Constitution by an Electoral College.

The EC has one vote for each member of House/Senate of each state. The
states themselves determine how to select their electors and the
procedure for the electors to vote. Most states mandate that all
electors of the state vote for the plurality winner of that state's
presidential balloting.

A majority of the EC votes is required to win election, not a
plurality. Since a relationship between margin of victory in the
various states and the total vote of the EC is not direct, it is very
possible to have an EC victory without winning the nationwide popular
vote.

These were the rules going into the election and all the players knew
them. The popular vote (even if it were accurately determined) is not
the means of electing our president.

BTW, how do you guys elect your PM? Oh, you don't have a nationwide
popular vote? What kind of democracy is that?


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8

On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 15:31:18 +0300, Rytkönen wrote:

[snip]

If you want a leader elected through direct popular vote, move to Finland!
http://www.presidentti.fi/eng/institution/

Yeah but who wants to pay $7 for a beer.
( or at least thats what a friend told it was in the 1980's )
Most I ever paid for a beer was $7.50 for a Tracquair House
( low volume high end Scottish beer ).

IBM

__________________________________________________ _____________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
The Worlds Uncensored News Source

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

Still sulking, Ace?

Steve Swartz


"Ace" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 13 Jul 2004 20:03:13 -0400, "Leslie Swartz"
wrote:

You are one ignorant- or evil- SOB, Ace.

I'm not the one who sulks in a corner, ignoring the person who has won
an argument against me.

Still sulking about being wrong on the whole "Won The Popular Vote" myth you
raised?

Steve Swartz

"Ace" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 13 Jul 2004 20:52:05 -0700, Steve Hix
wrote:

In article ,
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.

According to the Constitution, he was.

You've heard of the document, I suspect.

Is that the one riddled with various ad-hoc amendments, and provides
for children to kill each other with their daddy's guns with wanton
abandon?

"Ace" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 04:16:13 GMT, Mike Williamson
wrote:

Who won the popular vote?

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.

I wasn't taking about a *majority of the popular vote*. I was asking
about the *popular* vote - the greater number of votes.

AND YOU ARE STILL WRONG!

Steve Swartz

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.

Steve Swartz



"Ace" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 13 Jul 2004 20:02:24 -0400, "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.
2) Out of the votes that *were* counted, the totals were within the
margin
of errors of the mechanical counting systems used. Even with "perfectly"
filled out ballots, the machine counters have margins of error (within a
95%
confidence interval) of ~3% of total votes cast. Basically, any vote
tally
within 6% of each other is at least 5% chance we gave the win to the
wrong
guy . . . as teh tallies get closer, the probability of error gets
higher.
3) *Now* you may apply whatever sense of the typical "irregularites"
(10,000 absentee ballots discarded in Florida) you feel exist, and hte
margins are even higher.

STOP REPEATING HTE "GORE WON POPULAR ELECTION" BULL****!

You are no longer ignorant- if you repeat this lie, you are evil.

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

(Just a question, not a statement from this "ignorant" Limey - so
don't go having a temper tantrum.)