Yet a few of them don't act like it as they are unable to accept the
results of the election process.
Closer to 4 million.
Making false statements won't justify your inability to accept the
outcome. Unlike his predecessor who had over 50% of the voters vote
against him in both of his victories, at least Bush had less than 50% vote
against him in his re-election.
What? More inaccuries?
mandate: A command or an authorization given by a political electorate to
Yup, that's what any elected president gets.
Since the previous president claimed a mandate with less than 50% of
the vote, wouldn't you think that more than 50% of the vote is even more
of a mandate?
To escape criticism--do nothing, say nothing, be nothing." (Elbert Hubbard)
: Making false statements won't justify your inability to accept the
: outcome. Unlike his predecessor who had over 50% of the voters vote
: against him in both of his victories, at least Bush had less than 50% vote
: against him in his re-election.
Out of everyone who cared to vote, Clinton won.
Out of everyone who cared to vote, Bush II won by the slimmest margin in
Yeah, he has a mandate all right.
One to pay attention to everyone, not just the *very* slim majority that
elected him, and/or the Protestant religious fanatics.
-- Andy Barss
: On Thu, 03 Feb 2005 05:31:47 +0000, Andrew Barss wrote:
: Andy, Andy, Andy! And we pay _you_ to "educate" out children? What a
: waste of our taxpayers dollars :-(
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
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
To give the benefit of the doubt, he used the wrong term. Bush II
obviously did not have the largest "percentage" cast against him. What
he DID have was the largest actual number of votes cast against a
Another fact not likely to have appeared on Fox.
Nor the other damned lie (statistic) on the other networks.
In our ignorance we're regressing to "fundamentalism" of the sort that
rejects all other opinions save the interpretation by our priestly classes.
I for one would rather not have Dean or Michael Moore as my theologian - nor
Dan Rather as my pontiff.
Hope for greater understanding no longer lies in schools, as evidenced by
recent events, because they're more concerned with orthodoxy than education.
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
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.
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.
Careful with the attributions, please. I did *not* write this:
I wrote *this*:
I guess that depends on (a) whether you're talking about morals or educational
practices[*], and (b) what you mean by "orthodox" when referring to the
latter. For example, it was customary -- "orthodox" if you will -- for many,
many years to teach reading by phonics, and arithmetic by rote memorization of
addition and multiplication tables. It's hardly a coincidence that the decline
in reading and mathematical skills in the United States in the last three or
four decades followed directly on the heels of the abandonment of these
practices. Which is the "orthodoxy" -- phonics, or "look-say" reading? Sadly,
it's probably the latter now, although it didn't used to be that way.
It depends on the private school, too. Some have bought into the latest
psychobabble fads even more deeply than the public schools; others, more
concerned with educating students than with making their parents feel warm and
fuzzy, hew toward more traditional methods of education and discipline.
[ * We pulled our son out of public school after they announced their "value
neutral" curriculum for the coming year. (That wasn't the only reason, but it
sure played a part.) I *want* my kids to be taught in school that it's *wrong*
to cheat, to steal, to lie. We teach them that at home, of course -- but I
want the school to reinforce that, not undermine it by telling them that there
is no such thing as right or wrong. Say what you will about Catholic schools;
one thing is certain: nobody can accuse the Catholic Church of ever having
taught "value neutral" anything. ]
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
Nobody ever left footprints in the sands of time by sitting on his butt.
And who wants to leave buttprints in the sands of time?
That's my point, Greg. "your kind" in this context, is "people who assume
and imply something not justified based on an observation". I haven't
listened to Rush in years, and didn't particularly care for the guy ever.
Just because we (rightly) point out that Michael Moore is a lying sack of
shit, doesn't mean we _do_ like Rush, or Hannity, or whoever the heck
else you disagree with.
Got it now?
Another example of the "tolerant, open-minded" left, eh? Someone who
becomes addicted to pain killers as a result of having them prescribed for
severe backpain is somewhat different than someone who was out searching
for the next and best high, don't ya think? But, since this gives you
something to beat on and impugn with, impugn away. Says more about the
shallowness of the so-called open-mindedness of the left than anything
The absence of accidents does not mean the presence of safety
Army General Richard Cody
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.