Plywood armor plating

[Doug Miller]

He also had the largest actual number of votes cast *for* a sitting President, or for any other candidate. [With the possible exception of Ronald Reagan in

1984; I'm not sure of the exact numbers.]

Neither fact should come as much of a surprise to any thinking individual, given that this election had a higher number of voters than any previous Presidential election.

Nor should *that* surprise anyone, as the U.S. population is higher now than at any previous time.

Sad but true. Of course, there are always private schools.

-- Regards, Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)

Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com You must use your REAL email address to get a response.

[Renata]

My heavens! Now he's up from 1/4 of 1% to 1/3 of 1% ! An overwhelming amount of support if I ever did see one! Yupper! Gotta grasp those straws where one can.

-snip-

[Larry Jaques]

On Wed, 02 Feb 2005 22:34:56 -0700, the inscrutable Mark & Juanita spake:

Imperialism isn't "peace through strength".

Attacking countries for oil isn't "peace through strength".

Forcing countries to follow your way of thinking isn't "peace through strength".

And if "peace through strength" is the only message you're getting from the Shrub, yes, "gullible and deluded" fit entirely too well.

Yeah, Shrub and his dad, starting back when Bush, Sr. was CIA. Once we started putting bases on Arab soil and killing Arabs/Muslims, it kind of upset them. (Imagine that!) 'Rubbing their faces in Christianity, Capitalism, avarice, and "democracy" while telling them how to run their countries and price their oil' isn't helping, either. Killing

100k+ Iraqis is not the way to peace, either.

I urge you to find some perspective on this, Mark. Blindly following Bush isn't in your (or the public's) best interest.

[mac davis]

get it down to basics... the guy you wanted lost.... some other guy won... maybe it was your fault for not being active enough in getting votes for your guy, maybe it's just karma..

you now have 3 years to gear up for getting your choice in, go for it... but also admit that however it happened and whoever won, he's the President... and you can either work toward being positive and lobbying for what you want done, or be an anchor... YMMV

mac

Please remove splinters before emailing

[Doug Miller]

Let me guess: math wasn't your best subject in school, was it?

Hint: one percent of 120 is one-point-two.

For the record, here are the actual figures: Bush 60,608,582 (51.231%) Kerry 57,288,974 (48.425%) Nader 406,924 (0.344%) [Source:

]

The difference is 3,319,608 votes out of 118,204,480 cast, or 2.806%.

-- Regards, Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)

Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com You must use your REAL email address to get a response.

[Cothian]

Kevin wrote in news:RMjMd.194$ [e-mail]:

Number of votes or percentages be damned. The fact is W is sitting in the oval office. It doesn't matter now if you or I voted for him, against him or didn't vote at all. He is THE president. He is MY president. Flame at will Oh ye of small minds.......

Coth

[Cothian]

mac davis wrote in news: [e-mail]:

Amen, Brother Davis

[Charlie Self]

Well, sure. He is. That is somewhat similar to my ingrown toenail. I didn't want that, either.

Charlie Self "I think we agree, the past is over." George W. Bush

[Larry Blanchard]

I don't think there were many rational voters on either side :-).

[Larry Jaques]

On Thu, 03 Feb 2005 08:24:38 -0800, the inscrutable mac davis spake:

I didn't want either top contender. I voted Libertarian.

Yabbut this crazy f*ck is going to get all of us killed.

We may not -have- that long.

You bet your ass I'm working for a positive change.

[Andrew Barss]

: Andy, Andy, Andy! And we pay _you_ to "educate" out children? What a : waste of our taxpayers dollars :-(

Doug --

Mark said much the same thing a couple months ago, and I let it pass, but this is getting tiresome, so:

1) I understand you disagree with me on matters of politics. So be it. I like your opinions, and the ways you arrive at and express them, about as much as you like mine. So it goes.

2) I know very little about you, other than

a) you're very conservative b) you have a high opinion of yourself (who doesn't?) c) you do woodworking d) you live in Arizona e) you seem to have a *major* copyright violation on your personal webpage.

3) I quite specifically don't know what you do for a living: sysadmin? Burger flipper? Banker? Prison guard? Tycoon?

4) I wouldn't presume to conclude anything about what specifically you do, or how well you do it, at your job, based on (2a-e). It's irrelevant. You may be very good at what you do, or really bad at it, independent of, for example, your support of the Iraqi invasion.

5) What I do, as a professor and scientist, has absolutely nothing to do with politics, religion, or history (other than history of science). What I do for a living, and how well I do it, has utterly nothing to do with much of anything I say on rec.woodworking: it has nothing to do with my political views, what kind of furniture I like, what my favorite finish for maple burl is, etc. My students have no idea what my political opinions, stance on abortion, preferences in shellac type, etc. are.

SO I will thank you to do the same for me as I say in (4). Doing otherwise is either plain stupid, or willfully mean, or perhaps both.

-- Andy Barss

[Renata]

-snip-

The problem here is that the prez and the rest of y'all have decided that you'll just ignore the nearly equal number of Americans who voted against the guy. And, that a lot of folks voted for him because they were scairt.

Yes, I threw in an extra zero.

But this seems to be the SOP. 3% margin dictates a mandate; a couple ancient shells indicates massive stockpiles of WMD; well, you get the idea.

Renata

[Doug Miller]

I like the way you just gloss right over the figures in your snide remark being off by _an_order_of_magnitude_.

No, Renata, the real problem here is that some people just can't get over the fact that their guy _lost_. Are you one of the folks I read about in the paper who's seeking therapy for Post Election Stress Trauma or whatever?

No, you left one out.

You didn't have any problem with Clinton winning two elections in a row with less than a majority of the popular vote, did you?

-- Regards, Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)

Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com You must use your REAL email address to get a response.

[Charlie Self]

Doug Miller notes:

Nope. And I don't have a problem with Shrub winning twice in a row, but that doesn't change my opinion about him. He's a duplicitous twerp who is going to do major damage to the economic structure of this country, beyond what he has already done.

The fact that 51% of the voting public disagrees with me still doesn't change my opinion, so you neocons will need to get over that.

Charlie Self "I think we agree, the past is over." George W. Bush

[Swingman]

Without intending, note that you've just basically described every sitting member of congress. Bush, or Clinton for that matter, couldn't succeed in "duplicity" without the _complicity_ of the power hungry and greedy bastards, of both parties, supposedly representing the people.

Lawmaker lawyers and lobbyist - a pox on good government, and cancers on the body politic.

[Nate Perkins]

[e-mail] (Doug Miller) wrote in news:xtKMd.1049$ [e-mail]:

...

...

How can we forget when every time we open a post from you or Mark and a couple of others you insist on *reminding* us of this odious fact?

Strut away. Enjoy the "mandate."

But as I recall you were also the guys who were sure there were WMDs in Iraq, too. Perhaps you still think there are, hmm? After all, about 40% of the voters thought that Saddam had WMD and that Saddam directly aided the 9/11 terrorists:

've got to respect those Bush supporters for their ability not to confuse blind support with facts.

[Charlie Self]

Swingman responds:

Not unintentional. I just believe Bush is slightly more of a twerp than most of the others.

Charlie Self "I think we agree, the past is over." George W. Bush

[J. Clarke]

Charlie, I'm a lifelong Republican and I agree with you about Bush. The trouble is that Kerry looked to be different from Bush only in the line of bullshit he was spouting, so I decided to stick with the devil I knew rather than the one that I didn't.

I never thought I'd see anybody manage to make Clinton look good but Shrub is getting there.

[J. Clarke]

Personally right now I'd feel a lot better if FDR was sitting in that chair instead of Shrub. But I suspect that Shrub, if you asked him when he had enough liquor in him to give an honest answer, probably would say the same thing.

[Larry Jaques]

On 04 Feb 2005 13:24:12 GMT, the inscrutable [e-mail] (Charlie Self) spake:

Nope our bone to pick is with the American Sheeple who voted that way. Not that Kerry of Taxachusetts would have been much better, but his bad ways surely would have been less detrimental to the health of the US citizenry than what the Shrub looks to pull in the immediate future.

Not to mention that if he goes into yet another Muslim country, he will surely create the critical mass that will spark their global (and unified) PHYSICAL rebellion against us. It's all just hatred now. Wait until a large percentage of their 1.3 BILLION take up arms against us. I, for one, don't ever want to see that happen.

A non-religious AMEN to that, Charlie.