 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 22 Jan 2009 05:37:49 -0500, Warp <war### [at] tag povrayorg> wrote:
>scott <sco### [at] scottcom> wrote:
>> From his speeches that I've heard it seems like he has good intentions, and
>> I like a lot of what he said, but then I guess every politician would sound
>> like that.
>
> "How can you tell when a politician is lying?"
His lips move.
Boom, boom!
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 21 Jan 2009 12:40:14 -0500, John VanSickle <evi### [at] hotmailcom>
wrote:
>
>Perhaps he noted that they hated the US before any American presently
>alive was born,
I think that you're wrong about that, John. After WWII most of the world loved
America.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
And lo On Thu, 22 Jan 2009 08:00:34 -0000, scott <sco### [at] scottcom> did
spake thusly:
>>> It wasn't far off half for Obama either, 53% people voted for him, 46%
>>> for McCain.
>>
>> Yes, but your point is...?
>
> It's often quite close to 50/50 (for the raw number of votes) even
> though the media make it out to be a massive victory or loss for one
> side.
It can be if you only look at the votes that count and that'd be the
Electoral ones - 52.9% vs. 45.7% equaled 365 against 173 thus Obama
received over twice as many 'votes' as McCain - a landslide ;-)
Just for fun (if that's the right word) I've got a spreadsheet that sets
out the electorial votes by proportion rather than as a block going back
to 1980 so
Year (Candidates) - Actual Result - Proportional Result
1980 (Reagan, Carter, Anderson) - 489, 49 - 276, 223, 37
1984 (Reagan, Mondale) - 525, 13 - 320, 217, (1 Other)
1988 (Bush, Dukakis) - 426, 11 - 289, 247, (1 Other)
1992 (Cinton, Bush, Perot) - 370, 168 - 236, 197, 105
1996 (Clinton, Dole, Perot) - 379, 159 - 266, 223, 47, (2 Other)
2000 (Bush, Gore, Nader) - 271, 266 - 262, 261, 13, (1 Other)
2004 (Bush, Kerry) - 274, 264 - 278, 259, (1 Other)
2008 (Obama, McCain) - 365, 173 - 289, 248
To put it concisely the candidates who won would still have won just with
a much smaller majority, except in the case of 2004 where Bush would have
won by more!
For those interested Bush's gains would have been in California and New
York; instead of a combined 86 votes for Kerry he would only have got 48
with the remaining 37 going to Bush more than compensating any small
losses from Republican States.
--
Phil Cook
--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
And lo On Wed, 21 Jan 2009 17:40:14 -0000, John VanSickle
<evi### [at] hotmailcom> did spake thusly:
> Perhaps he noted that they hated the US before any American presently
> alive was born, and decided that courting their opinion was a waste of
> time.
In one's own humble opinion the UK viewpoint is this:
Reagan - To busy worrying about Thatcher, IRA, and not being run-over by
loud men in red braces coked out of their heads (or to be busy being a
load man in red braces trying to find more coke)
Bush Snr - Who? Oh yeah Desert Storm; who was he again?
Clinton - "Love is in the Air"
Bush Jr. "Imperial March"
> Perhaps he noted that courting world opinion required the chronic habit
> of making unrewarded sacrifices and unreciprocated concessions.
Um when has America ever courted world opinion when there hasn't been
something in it for America? Not a negative mind, that's what they're
elected for. The only difference between Clinton and Bush was that Clinton
made a pretence of caring and asking.
> Perhaps he noted that the press had made a habit of distorting anything
> he said, so he decided that saying nothing was the wisest course of
> action.
Did the press need to distort anything he said, heck the White House's own
transcripts could barely make sense of the man.
> I think a rude awakening is in store for a lot of his supporters.
Oh yes on that we can agree, though admittedly he's already made a start
with the scheduled closure of Gitmo.
--
Phil Cook
--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Phil Cook v2 wrote:
> It can be if you only look at the votes that count
I've also heard (without substantiation on my part) that this is the first
election where more than half the eligible general population actually cast
a vote for the winner. So that's something.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"Ouch ouch ouch!"
"What's wrong? Noodles too hot?"
"No, I have Chopstick Tunnel Syndrome."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
subject: re: president obama
to:
cc:
bcc:
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=# don't remove this line #=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
jeremy "unclehoot" praay wrote:
> does this mean that the rest of the world will stop hating us (the
> usa) now?
>
> yes, it's a dumb question, but the bush hatred was so prevalent
> that if there were any other reasons to hate the us, they were
> overshadowed if not completely forgotten.
>
> bush may have been the worst president in my lifetime.
When you and I were in school, guys who liked thick butts were
considered "ghetto." Americans seem to have changed our minds about that
one and fallen in love with big bootys. And on the subject of
attraction, I very much doubt that Catherine Bach or Linder Carter would
make it as a sex symbol today. Clark Gable wouldn't have a chance.
My point is that the media are very powerful, and have, I believe,
changed something as fundamental as our sexual impulses by keeping us
saturated with what they want us to accept or believe.
I don't like W either, but I have to wonder if some of my dislike isn't
the result of exposure to eight years of "advertising" against him. I do
catch myself checking out some rather swollen backsides on occasion. :)
And the message from our government is an easy sell:
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Dear American voter:
You've spent not only everything you've ever made in your life, but
everything you're going to make for the next 18 months. Now, impending
retirement, aging parents, college age kids, or some other evil is
making it uncomfortable to make your credit payments. Have no fear,
voter. We'll take money from people who make more than you AND people
who haven't been born yet and we'll lesson the burden of living above
your means.
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Hopefully we get more (less) than that, but that's exactly what we voted
for. Barak articulated this message well, so the desperate consumers at
all income levels are very excited right now. They'll remain excited
until they retire, support the parents, or put the kids through college
and find that additional spending has made doing so no less hard than it
would have been without the emergency loan.
Panic Borrow Panic Borrow Panic Borrow. We NEED a new computer. We NEED
a bigger car. We NEED double-pane insulated glass on the windows.
Always a new crisis; Always a new high from borrowing your way out of
it. That explains the mania. That explains why we believe other
countries MUST love our most recent savior - He gives GREAT loan. /Sorry
peoplewhohavenotbeenbornyet./
Of course, the non-US will love Obama, but that's because they're as
receptive to US media as they are to our fast food enterprises.
-Shay
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 22-Jan-09 8:55, scott wrote:
>>> From his speeches that I've heard it seems like he has good
>>> intentions, and I like a lot of what he said, but then I guess every
>>> politician would sound like that. I'm going to wait to see how he
>>> tackles environmental issues, although judging by the size of his car
>>> he's not setting a very good example :-) (yes I know it's armour
>>> plated etc, but still...)
>>>
>>>
>> armour plating does not make it more fuel efficient.
>
> No, but it provides a reasonable explanation of why it has to be so big
> and heavy.
>
Ah, ok, perhaps I misinterpreted your statement ;)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Shay" <sha### [at] nonenone> wrote in message news:4978c26b@news.povray.org...
>
> When you and I were in school, guys who liked thick butts were considered
> "ghetto." Americans seem to have changed our minds about that one and
> fallen in love with big bootys. And on the subject of attraction, I very
> much doubt that Catherine Bach or Linder Carter would make it as a sex
> symbol today. Clark Gable wouldn't have a chance.
>
> My point is that the media are very powerful, and have, I believe, changed
> something as fundamental as our sexual impulses by keeping us saturated
> with what they want us to accept or believe.
>
> I don't like W either, but I have to wonder if some of my dislike isn't
> the result of exposure to eight years of "advertising" against him. I do
> catch myself checking out some rather swollen backsides on occasion. :)
It's a valid point, and I honestly can't say to what extent I have been
influenced. I do recall that early in Bush's Presidency, on a few
occasions, I remember thinking that he was (to use a poker analogy) setting
the trap. In other words, sure, he looks like he's weak, he looks like he
doesn't exactly know what he's doing, but watch out guys! He's just setting
things up for the big showdown! After thinking that 3 or 4 times, and then
realizing that there was not going to be a "surprise!" moment, I lost some
faith in him and his abilities.
Iraq and the failure to find any true WMD's (they did find some old useless
chemical weapons) didn't help, even though pretty much the entire world
thought Saddam had WMD's. Saddam deserved what he got. But are we better
off? Not at the moment. Will we be in the futre? I don't think we will
have any idea for decades. At the moment, it certainly appears to be a
failure and a waste of human life. I hope that view changes some day, but
that's probably unlikely in the next 20 years. Having discussed the issue
with some Vietnam veterans, they generally seem to think we've made the same
mistake twice. The real difference is that those fighting in Iraq are not
doing it with the hope of having a better future, but that's a whole-nuther
issue...
The "tough on terror" seemed to become an excuse for practically anything
Congress/Bush wanted to do, which really made me sick. Killing the bad guys
is fine, but each time Americans lose more rights/freedom, it's almost
impossible to get those things back. I, for one, would rather have a plane
blow up each year than to have everyone subjected to the type of airport
security that we now have. But I also feel that way about pseudoephedrine
and meth labs. You have to practically file a police report to get access
to the Claritin-D now, and the government actually keeps that info, unlike a
normal prescription, where they are generally prohibited by law from
accessing such information. That should scare the crap out of people. But
it doesn't.
>
> And the message from our government is an easy sell:
>
> //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
> Dear American voter:
> You've spent not only everything you've ever made in your life, but
> everything you're going to make for the next 18 months. Now, impending
> retirement, aging parents, college age kids, or some other evil is making
> it uncomfortable to make your credit payments. Have no fear, voter. We'll
> take money from people who make more than you AND people who haven't been
> born yet and we'll lesson the burden of living above your means.
> //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
>
> Hopefully we get more (less) than that, but that's exactly what we voted
> for. Barak articulated this message well, so the desperate consumers at
> all income levels are very excited right now. They'll remain excited until
> they retire, support the parents, or put the kids through college and find
> that additional spending has made doing so no less hard than it would have
> been without the emergency loan.
>
> Panic Borrow Panic Borrow Panic Borrow. We NEED a new computer. We NEED a
> bigger car. We NEED double-pane insulated glass on the windows. Always a
> new crisis; Always a new high from borrowing your way out of it. That
> explains the mania. That explains why we believe other countries MUST love
> our most recent savior - He gives GREAT loan. /Sorry
> peoplewhohavenotbeenbornyet./
Obama is a Socialist. He may even be a Marxist. Is that bad? Well,
Communism in the Soviet Union and elsewhere was pretty bad, but I don't
personally blame Karl Marx. Certainly there are a lot of friendly Socialist
countries. I hope we don't become one, and I hope that the moderate
Democrats will take a stand against anything too far left. But, under Bush,
we've already begun racing down the road of Socialism, starting with
prescription drug coverage, and ending with what historians may view as the
moment when the US finally embraced Socialism: The Great Bank Bailout of
2008. Now we're bailing out the auto industry, too. When will it stop? It
won't. Every time any failing enterprise is in trouble, and it's large
enough, this same thing will happen. Perhaps the real failure was allowing
them to become so large that states like Michigan will simply not survive if
GM folds. (Actually, I don't believe that. With a hole that big, something
would fill it in, but yeah, it would really suck for awhile). Republicans
and Democrats both love the auto-industry. The Union vote is HUGE for the
Democrats. The money coming from the auto-industry (execs, esp) is HUGE for
the Republicans.
> Of course, the non-US will love Obama, but that's because they're as
> receptive to US media as they are to our fast food enterprises.
After the election, I remember CNN showing a young woman visbily crying (for
joy, presumably) in the streets of Paris. That made a big impression on me,
and it really made me wonder just how far things have gotten out of hand.
Bush was not Hitler for crying out loud (no pun intended). The gap between
Bush and Clinton, and even Obama, isn't nearly as wide as has been
portrayed. If Bush was Hitler, then Clinton would be Stalin. If Obama is
Jesus Christ, then Bush must have been John the Baptist. Instead, Obama is
Jesus, and Bush is Satan. Again, I could care less who hates Bush and who
doesn't, but I would hope that everyone would stay somewhat grounded in
reality. The difference between Democrats and Republicans is a lot smaller
than the gap between Democrats and, say, Britain's Conservative Party (and
that doesn't even mention French politics). But each has a couple
diametrically opposed issues that they like to talk/fight about. Hey, at
least they're not blowing each other up over it.
Unlike Rush Limbaugh, I hope Obama has a good Presidency. I think our
country needs that. But I don't think we need to travel farther down the
road to Socialism for that to happen. He can be kept in check and balanced
by other reasonable people in Congress, if we still have any of those, and
there are a lot of things that "middle-of-the-road" issues that members in
both Houses can support. If he sticks to that, he can't fail. That's
largely what Clinton did.
Wow, that's a lot off my chest! :-) I need to think about something else
now...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Darren New" <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote in message
news:4978b02c$1@news.povray.org...
>
> I've also heard (without substantiation on my part) that this is the first
> election where more than half the eligible general population actually
> cast a vote for the winner. So that's something.
>
Voter turnout in the US, even when relatively very high, is still fairly
low. http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0781453.html
When George Bush (not W) was elected, he won a majority of the popular vote
(meaning more than 50%). I don't think that happened again until Obama's
election, as very close elections and 3rd party candidates got in the way.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jeremy "UncleHoot" Praay wrote:
> I do recall that early in Bush's Presidency, on a few occasions, I
> remember thinking that he was (to use a poker analogy) setting the
> trap. In other words, sure, he looks like he's weak, he looks
> like he doesn't exactly know what he's doing, but watch out guys!
> He's just setting things up for the big showdown! After thinking
> that 3 or 4 times, and then realizing that there was not going to
> be a "surprise!" moment, I lost some faith in him and his
> abilities.
Don't know. Obama's position shifts immediately after getting elected
lead me to believe that there is a lot more that we don't know than I
ever realized/accepted.
> Obama is a Socialist. He may even be a Marxist. Is that bad?
> Well, Communism in the Soviet Union and elsewhere was pretty bad,
> but I don't personally blame Karl Marx. Certainly there are a lot
> of friendly Socialist countries.
We've improved upon Marxism: From each who can't grant power [felons,
babies, political minorities] according to ability; To each who can
grant power [rich, political majorities] without restriction.
The Socialism isn't as bad as the unrestrained Democracy - the tyrany of
the Majority. We all want to take (by force) from "someone else." Our
vote is an act of force, and when that force is used to take from
someone, no matter how just we may feel that taking to be, we have done
no different than if we had beaten him with a stick and robbed him. Too
few realize that everyone gets a chance to hold the stick and everyone
takes his turn getting beaten. Wealth centralizes around a tiny, tiny
group while the rest of us sit around bloody, toothless, and stupefied
waiting for our turn to wield the rod.
That's exactly the tendency our Constitution is meant to protect us
from. But it has been lost. "Moderates" couldn't protect us even if they
wanted to. The majority WILL make themselves miserable and desperate,
and desperate people WILL act unconscionably and stupidly (lottery
ticket, anyone?) to cure themselves.
-Shay
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
