Re: Stupid Americans! -- Stupid... Stupid... STUPID!!! __________==___ utivro
#131
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Stupid Americans! -- Stupid... Stupid... STUPID!!! __________==___ utivro
>
> --
> Prophetic Words: "On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the
> land will reach their heart's desire at last and the White House will be
> adorned by a downright moron." - H.L. Mencken. How true.
>
>
Yes, we had Bill Clinton in office for 8 years.
Charles of Kankakee
> --
> Prophetic Words: "On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the
> land will reach their heart's desire at last and the White House will be
> adorned by a downright moron." - H.L. Mencken. How true.
>
>
Yes, we had Bill Clinton in office for 8 years.
Charles of Kankakee
#132
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Stupid Americans! -- Stupid... Stupid... STUPID!!! __________==___ utivro
>
> --
> Prophetic Words: "On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the
> land will reach their heart's desire at last and the White House will be
> adorned by a downright moron." - H.L. Mencken. How true.
>
>
Yes, we had Bill Clinton in office for 8 years.
Charles of Kankakee
> --
> Prophetic Words: "On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the
> land will reach their heart's desire at last and the White House will be
> adorned by a downright moron." - H.L. Mencken. How true.
>
>
Yes, we had Bill Clinton in office for 8 years.
Charles of Kankakee
#133
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Stupid Americans! -- Stupid... Stupid... STUPID!!! __________==___ utivro
On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 23:01:19 GMT, the following appeared in
rec.autos.makers.jeep+******, posted by "Roy" <crawroy @
nbnet.nb.ca>:
>"Bob Casanova" <nospam@buzz.off> wrote in message
>news:edssp01qdq0hlgdtj2qdsrvep91bep4keg@4ax.com.. .
>> On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 15:37:42 -0600, the following appeared
>> in rec.autos.makers.jeep+******, posted by "ccr"
>> <crhodes@nospam.com>:
<snip>
>>>That Bush had the largest number of votes AGAINST him in US history also
>>>is
>>>telling. His percentage margin of votes was lowest in history for an
>>>incumbent.
>> Really? I could have sworn that his father's percentage was
>> lower, as were Carter's and Ford's. And probably numerous
>> others.
>The definition below is from www.dictionary.com. See #3 for his meaning when
>he said "lowest in history for an incumbent."
Perhaps you should re-read that definition.
>W's father, Carter and Ford, according to www.whitehouse.gov, only served
>one term so none of them were incumbents. They may have moved up from being
>Vice President to President but that doesn't put them in the same category.
>Apparently their low percentage didn't hold up four years later.
> in·***·bent ( P ) Pronunciation Key (n-kmbnt)
> adj.
> 1.. Imposed as an obligation or duty; obligatory: felt it was
>incumbent on us all to help.
> 2.. Lying, leaning, or resting on something else: incumbent rock
>strata.
> 3.. Currently holding a specified office: the incumbent mayor.
There seems to be some confusion here. As you can see when
you re-read his post above, he didn't specify "for an
incumbent *who was re-elected*". Bush Sr., Carter and Ford
were all incumbents when they stood for re-election. The
fact that none of them succeeded is irrelevant to the
initial statement (which is what I was pointing out).
And FWIW, he was incorrect even *if* he'd specified "an
incumbent who was re-elected", since Clinton (to name only
the most recent) was re-elected with considerably less than
50% of the popular vote.
--
Bob C.
Reply to Bob-Casanova @ worldnet.att.net
(without the spaces, of course)
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"
- Isaac Asimov
rec.autos.makers.jeep+******, posted by "Roy" <crawroy @
nbnet.nb.ca>:
>"Bob Casanova" <nospam@buzz.off> wrote in message
>news:edssp01qdq0hlgdtj2qdsrvep91bep4keg@4ax.com.. .
>> On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 15:37:42 -0600, the following appeared
>> in rec.autos.makers.jeep+******, posted by "ccr"
>> <crhodes@nospam.com>:
<snip>
>>>That Bush had the largest number of votes AGAINST him in US history also
>>>is
>>>telling. His percentage margin of votes was lowest in history for an
>>>incumbent.
>> Really? I could have sworn that his father's percentage was
>> lower, as were Carter's and Ford's. And probably numerous
>> others.
>The definition below is from www.dictionary.com. See #3 for his meaning when
>he said "lowest in history for an incumbent."
Perhaps you should re-read that definition.
>W's father, Carter and Ford, according to www.whitehouse.gov, only served
>one term so none of them were incumbents. They may have moved up from being
>Vice President to President but that doesn't put them in the same category.
>Apparently their low percentage didn't hold up four years later.
> in·***·bent ( P ) Pronunciation Key (n-kmbnt)
> adj.
> 1.. Imposed as an obligation or duty; obligatory: felt it was
>incumbent on us all to help.
> 2.. Lying, leaning, or resting on something else: incumbent rock
>strata.
> 3.. Currently holding a specified office: the incumbent mayor.
There seems to be some confusion here. As you can see when
you re-read his post above, he didn't specify "for an
incumbent *who was re-elected*". Bush Sr., Carter and Ford
were all incumbents when they stood for re-election. The
fact that none of them succeeded is irrelevant to the
initial statement (which is what I was pointing out).
And FWIW, he was incorrect even *if* he'd specified "an
incumbent who was re-elected", since Clinton (to name only
the most recent) was re-elected with considerably less than
50% of the popular vote.
--
Bob C.
Reply to Bob-Casanova @ worldnet.att.net
(without the spaces, of course)
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"
- Isaac Asimov
#134
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Stupid Americans! -- Stupid... Stupid... STUPID!!! __________==___ utivro
On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 23:01:19 GMT, the following appeared in
rec.autos.makers.jeep+******, posted by "Roy" <crawroy @
nbnet.nb.ca>:
>"Bob Casanova" <nospam@buzz.off> wrote in message
>news:edssp01qdq0hlgdtj2qdsrvep91bep4keg@4ax.com.. .
>> On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 15:37:42 -0600, the following appeared
>> in rec.autos.makers.jeep+******, posted by "ccr"
>> <crhodes@nospam.com>:
<snip>
>>>That Bush had the largest number of votes AGAINST him in US history also
>>>is
>>>telling. His percentage margin of votes was lowest in history for an
>>>incumbent.
>> Really? I could have sworn that his father's percentage was
>> lower, as were Carter's and Ford's. And probably numerous
>> others.
>The definition below is from www.dictionary.com. See #3 for his meaning when
>he said "lowest in history for an incumbent."
Perhaps you should re-read that definition.
>W's father, Carter and Ford, according to www.whitehouse.gov, only served
>one term so none of them were incumbents. They may have moved up from being
>Vice President to President but that doesn't put them in the same category.
>Apparently their low percentage didn't hold up four years later.
> in·***·bent ( P ) Pronunciation Key (n-kmbnt)
> adj.
> 1.. Imposed as an obligation or duty; obligatory: felt it was
>incumbent on us all to help.
> 2.. Lying, leaning, or resting on something else: incumbent rock
>strata.
> 3.. Currently holding a specified office: the incumbent mayor.
There seems to be some confusion here. As you can see when
you re-read his post above, he didn't specify "for an
incumbent *who was re-elected*". Bush Sr., Carter and Ford
were all incumbents when they stood for re-election. The
fact that none of them succeeded is irrelevant to the
initial statement (which is what I was pointing out).
And FWIW, he was incorrect even *if* he'd specified "an
incumbent who was re-elected", since Clinton (to name only
the most recent) was re-elected with considerably less than
50% of the popular vote.
--
Bob C.
Reply to Bob-Casanova @ worldnet.att.net
(without the spaces, of course)
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"
- Isaac Asimov
rec.autos.makers.jeep+******, posted by "Roy" <crawroy @
nbnet.nb.ca>:
>"Bob Casanova" <nospam@buzz.off> wrote in message
>news:edssp01qdq0hlgdtj2qdsrvep91bep4keg@4ax.com.. .
>> On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 15:37:42 -0600, the following appeared
>> in rec.autos.makers.jeep+******, posted by "ccr"
>> <crhodes@nospam.com>:
<snip>
>>>That Bush had the largest number of votes AGAINST him in US history also
>>>is
>>>telling. His percentage margin of votes was lowest in history for an
>>>incumbent.
>> Really? I could have sworn that his father's percentage was
>> lower, as were Carter's and Ford's. And probably numerous
>> others.
>The definition below is from www.dictionary.com. See #3 for his meaning when
>he said "lowest in history for an incumbent."
Perhaps you should re-read that definition.
>W's father, Carter and Ford, according to www.whitehouse.gov, only served
>one term so none of them were incumbents. They may have moved up from being
>Vice President to President but that doesn't put them in the same category.
>Apparently their low percentage didn't hold up four years later.
> in·***·bent ( P ) Pronunciation Key (n-kmbnt)
> adj.
> 1.. Imposed as an obligation or duty; obligatory: felt it was
>incumbent on us all to help.
> 2.. Lying, leaning, or resting on something else: incumbent rock
>strata.
> 3.. Currently holding a specified office: the incumbent mayor.
There seems to be some confusion here. As you can see when
you re-read his post above, he didn't specify "for an
incumbent *who was re-elected*". Bush Sr., Carter and Ford
were all incumbents when they stood for re-election. The
fact that none of them succeeded is irrelevant to the
initial statement (which is what I was pointing out).
And FWIW, he was incorrect even *if* he'd specified "an
incumbent who was re-elected", since Clinton (to name only
the most recent) was re-elected with considerably less than
50% of the popular vote.
--
Bob C.
Reply to Bob-Casanova @ worldnet.att.net
(without the spaces, of course)
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"
- Isaac Asimov
#135
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Stupid Americans! -- Stupid... Stupid... STUPID!!! __________==___ utivro
On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 23:01:19 GMT, the following appeared in
rec.autos.makers.jeep+******, posted by "Roy" <crawroy @
nbnet.nb.ca>:
>"Bob Casanova" <nospam@buzz.off> wrote in message
>news:edssp01qdq0hlgdtj2qdsrvep91bep4keg@4ax.com.. .
>> On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 15:37:42 -0600, the following appeared
>> in rec.autos.makers.jeep+******, posted by "ccr"
>> <crhodes@nospam.com>:
<snip>
>>>That Bush had the largest number of votes AGAINST him in US history also
>>>is
>>>telling. His percentage margin of votes was lowest in history for an
>>>incumbent.
>> Really? I could have sworn that his father's percentage was
>> lower, as were Carter's and Ford's. And probably numerous
>> others.
>The definition below is from www.dictionary.com. See #3 for his meaning when
>he said "lowest in history for an incumbent."
Perhaps you should re-read that definition.
>W's father, Carter and Ford, according to www.whitehouse.gov, only served
>one term so none of them were incumbents. They may have moved up from being
>Vice President to President but that doesn't put them in the same category.
>Apparently their low percentage didn't hold up four years later.
> in·***·bent ( P ) Pronunciation Key (n-kmbnt)
> adj.
> 1.. Imposed as an obligation or duty; obligatory: felt it was
>incumbent on us all to help.
> 2.. Lying, leaning, or resting on something else: incumbent rock
>strata.
> 3.. Currently holding a specified office: the incumbent mayor.
There seems to be some confusion here. As you can see when
you re-read his post above, he didn't specify "for an
incumbent *who was re-elected*". Bush Sr., Carter and Ford
were all incumbents when they stood for re-election. The
fact that none of them succeeded is irrelevant to the
initial statement (which is what I was pointing out).
And FWIW, he was incorrect even *if* he'd specified "an
incumbent who was re-elected", since Clinton (to name only
the most recent) was re-elected with considerably less than
50% of the popular vote.
--
Bob C.
Reply to Bob-Casanova @ worldnet.att.net
(without the spaces, of course)
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"
- Isaac Asimov
rec.autos.makers.jeep+******, posted by "Roy" <crawroy @
nbnet.nb.ca>:
>"Bob Casanova" <nospam@buzz.off> wrote in message
>news:edssp01qdq0hlgdtj2qdsrvep91bep4keg@4ax.com.. .
>> On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 15:37:42 -0600, the following appeared
>> in rec.autos.makers.jeep+******, posted by "ccr"
>> <crhodes@nospam.com>:
<snip>
>>>That Bush had the largest number of votes AGAINST him in US history also
>>>is
>>>telling. His percentage margin of votes was lowest in history for an
>>>incumbent.
>> Really? I could have sworn that his father's percentage was
>> lower, as were Carter's and Ford's. And probably numerous
>> others.
>The definition below is from www.dictionary.com. See #3 for his meaning when
>he said "lowest in history for an incumbent."
Perhaps you should re-read that definition.
>W's father, Carter and Ford, according to www.whitehouse.gov, only served
>one term so none of them were incumbents. They may have moved up from being
>Vice President to President but that doesn't put them in the same category.
>Apparently their low percentage didn't hold up four years later.
> in·***·bent ( P ) Pronunciation Key (n-kmbnt)
> adj.
> 1.. Imposed as an obligation or duty; obligatory: felt it was
>incumbent on us all to help.
> 2.. Lying, leaning, or resting on something else: incumbent rock
>strata.
> 3.. Currently holding a specified office: the incumbent mayor.
There seems to be some confusion here. As you can see when
you re-read his post above, he didn't specify "for an
incumbent *who was re-elected*". Bush Sr., Carter and Ford
were all incumbents when they stood for re-election. The
fact that none of them succeeded is irrelevant to the
initial statement (which is what I was pointing out).
And FWIW, he was incorrect even *if* he'd specified "an
incumbent who was re-elected", since Clinton (to name only
the most recent) was re-elected with considerably less than
50% of the popular vote.
--
Bob C.
Reply to Bob-Casanova @ worldnet.att.net
(without the spaces, of course)
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"
- Isaac Asimov
#136
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Stupid Americans! -- Stupid... Stupid... STUPID!!! __________==___ utivro
On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 22:09:47 -0600, the following appeared
in rec.autos.makers.jeep+******, posted by "ccr"
<crhodes@nospam.com>:
>"Bob Casanova" <nospam@buzz.off> wrote in message
>news:edssp01qdq0hlgdtj2qdsrvep91bep4keg@4ax.com.. .
>> On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 15:37:42 -0600, the following appeared
>> in rec.autos.makers.jeep+******, posted by "ccr"
>> <crhodes@nospam.com>:
<snip>
>>>That Bush had the largest number of votes AGAINST him in US history also
>>>is
>>>telling. His percentage margin of votes was lowest in history for an
>>>incumbent.
>>
>> Really? I could have sworn that his father's percentage was
>> lower, as were Carter's and Ford's. And probably numerous
>> others.
>
>For an incumbent reelected, Bush had the smallest percentage margin of
>victory. In other words, he just barely squeaked a win.
Even if you change your claim to restrict it to an incumbent
*who was re-elected* it's incorrect. Clinton was re-elected
in '96 with less than 45% of the popular vote. Bush's margin
was no landslide, but it was far from the smallest.
--
Bob C.
Reply to Bob-Casanova @ worldnet.att.net
(without the spaces, of course)
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"
- Isaac Asimov
in rec.autos.makers.jeep+******, posted by "ccr"
<crhodes@nospam.com>:
>"Bob Casanova" <nospam@buzz.off> wrote in message
>news:edssp01qdq0hlgdtj2qdsrvep91bep4keg@4ax.com.. .
>> On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 15:37:42 -0600, the following appeared
>> in rec.autos.makers.jeep+******, posted by "ccr"
>> <crhodes@nospam.com>:
<snip>
>>>That Bush had the largest number of votes AGAINST him in US history also
>>>is
>>>telling. His percentage margin of votes was lowest in history for an
>>>incumbent.
>>
>> Really? I could have sworn that his father's percentage was
>> lower, as were Carter's and Ford's. And probably numerous
>> others.
>
>For an incumbent reelected, Bush had the smallest percentage margin of
>victory. In other words, he just barely squeaked a win.
Even if you change your claim to restrict it to an incumbent
*who was re-elected* it's incorrect. Clinton was re-elected
in '96 with less than 45% of the popular vote. Bush's margin
was no landslide, but it was far from the smallest.
--
Bob C.
Reply to Bob-Casanova @ worldnet.att.net
(without the spaces, of course)
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"
- Isaac Asimov
#137
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Stupid Americans! -- Stupid... Stupid... STUPID!!! __________==___ utivro
On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 22:09:47 -0600, the following appeared
in rec.autos.makers.jeep+******, posted by "ccr"
<crhodes@nospam.com>:
>"Bob Casanova" <nospam@buzz.off> wrote in message
>news:edssp01qdq0hlgdtj2qdsrvep91bep4keg@4ax.com.. .
>> On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 15:37:42 -0600, the following appeared
>> in rec.autos.makers.jeep+******, posted by "ccr"
>> <crhodes@nospam.com>:
<snip>
>>>That Bush had the largest number of votes AGAINST him in US history also
>>>is
>>>telling. His percentage margin of votes was lowest in history for an
>>>incumbent.
>>
>> Really? I could have sworn that his father's percentage was
>> lower, as were Carter's and Ford's. And probably numerous
>> others.
>
>For an incumbent reelected, Bush had the smallest percentage margin of
>victory. In other words, he just barely squeaked a win.
Even if you change your claim to restrict it to an incumbent
*who was re-elected* it's incorrect. Clinton was re-elected
in '96 with less than 45% of the popular vote. Bush's margin
was no landslide, but it was far from the smallest.
--
Bob C.
Reply to Bob-Casanova @ worldnet.att.net
(without the spaces, of course)
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"
- Isaac Asimov
in rec.autos.makers.jeep+******, posted by "ccr"
<crhodes@nospam.com>:
>"Bob Casanova" <nospam@buzz.off> wrote in message
>news:edssp01qdq0hlgdtj2qdsrvep91bep4keg@4ax.com.. .
>> On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 15:37:42 -0600, the following appeared
>> in rec.autos.makers.jeep+******, posted by "ccr"
>> <crhodes@nospam.com>:
<snip>
>>>That Bush had the largest number of votes AGAINST him in US history also
>>>is
>>>telling. His percentage margin of votes was lowest in history for an
>>>incumbent.
>>
>> Really? I could have sworn that his father's percentage was
>> lower, as were Carter's and Ford's. And probably numerous
>> others.
>
>For an incumbent reelected, Bush had the smallest percentage margin of
>victory. In other words, he just barely squeaked a win.
Even if you change your claim to restrict it to an incumbent
*who was re-elected* it's incorrect. Clinton was re-elected
in '96 with less than 45% of the popular vote. Bush's margin
was no landslide, but it was far from the smallest.
--
Bob C.
Reply to Bob-Casanova @ worldnet.att.net
(without the spaces, of course)
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"
- Isaac Asimov
#138
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Stupid Americans! -- Stupid... Stupid... STUPID!!! __________==___ utivro
On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 22:09:47 -0600, the following appeared
in rec.autos.makers.jeep+******, posted by "ccr"
<crhodes@nospam.com>:
>"Bob Casanova" <nospam@buzz.off> wrote in message
>news:edssp01qdq0hlgdtj2qdsrvep91bep4keg@4ax.com.. .
>> On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 15:37:42 -0600, the following appeared
>> in rec.autos.makers.jeep+******, posted by "ccr"
>> <crhodes@nospam.com>:
<snip>
>>>That Bush had the largest number of votes AGAINST him in US history also
>>>is
>>>telling. His percentage margin of votes was lowest in history for an
>>>incumbent.
>>
>> Really? I could have sworn that his father's percentage was
>> lower, as were Carter's and Ford's. And probably numerous
>> others.
>
>For an incumbent reelected, Bush had the smallest percentage margin of
>victory. In other words, he just barely squeaked a win.
Even if you change your claim to restrict it to an incumbent
*who was re-elected* it's incorrect. Clinton was re-elected
in '96 with less than 45% of the popular vote. Bush's margin
was no landslide, but it was far from the smallest.
--
Bob C.
Reply to Bob-Casanova @ worldnet.att.net
(without the spaces, of course)
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"
- Isaac Asimov
in rec.autos.makers.jeep+******, posted by "ccr"
<crhodes@nospam.com>:
>"Bob Casanova" <nospam@buzz.off> wrote in message
>news:edssp01qdq0hlgdtj2qdsrvep91bep4keg@4ax.com.. .
>> On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 15:37:42 -0600, the following appeared
>> in rec.autos.makers.jeep+******, posted by "ccr"
>> <crhodes@nospam.com>:
<snip>
>>>That Bush had the largest number of votes AGAINST him in US history also
>>>is
>>>telling. His percentage margin of votes was lowest in history for an
>>>incumbent.
>>
>> Really? I could have sworn that his father's percentage was
>> lower, as were Carter's and Ford's. And probably numerous
>> others.
>
>For an incumbent reelected, Bush had the smallest percentage margin of
>victory. In other words, he just barely squeaked a win.
Even if you change your claim to restrict it to an incumbent
*who was re-elected* it's incorrect. Clinton was re-elected
in '96 with less than 45% of the popular vote. Bush's margin
was no landslide, but it was far from the smallest.
--
Bob C.
Reply to Bob-Casanova @ worldnet.att.net
(without the spaces, of course)
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"
- Isaac Asimov
#139
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Stupid Americans! -- Stupid... Stupid... STUPID!!! __________==___ utivro
"Bob Casanova" <nospam@buzz.off> wrote in message
news:12jvp0li8gemd1sbiqu41ob0r0ul98s65i@4ax.com...
> And FWIW, he was incorrect even *if* he'd specified "an
> incumbent who was re-elected", since Clinton (to name only
> the most recent) was re-elected with considerably less than
> 50% of the popular vote.
Wrong AGAIN! I said MARGIN of victory. Bush's percentage margin was
pathetic. It has nothing to do with a majority. Geez learn to read.
--
Prophetic Words: "On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land
will reach their heart's desire at last and the White House will be adorned
by a downright moron." - H.L. Mencken
#140
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Stupid Americans! -- Stupid... Stupid... STUPID!!! __________==___ utivro
"Bob Casanova" <nospam@buzz.off> wrote in message
news:12jvp0li8gemd1sbiqu41ob0r0ul98s65i@4ax.com...
> And FWIW, he was incorrect even *if* he'd specified "an
> incumbent who was re-elected", since Clinton (to name only
> the most recent) was re-elected with considerably less than
> 50% of the popular vote.
Wrong AGAIN! I said MARGIN of victory. Bush's percentage margin was
pathetic. It has nothing to do with a majority. Geez learn to read.
--
Prophetic Words: "On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land
will reach their heart's desire at last and the White House will be adorned
by a downright moron." - H.L. Mencken