Stupid Americans! -- Stupid... Stupid... STUPID!!! __________==___ utivro

Another leftist wet-diaper wrote:

> No, we liberals will try to assure the rest of the world that only a bare
majority of voters were ignorant enough to choose Bush. <

A 4 million vote minimum, as opposed to Al Gore's 500,000!

<A sizable minority of us are not in the "Stupid Americans" camp..... >

That is, of course, unless viewed by the majority of us, who think you are
just delightfully stupid!!!!!

< We oppose wars based on lies. >

But under our liberal icon, Lyndon Johnson, we started Vietnam based upon
the Gulf of Tonkin resolution, a total Democrat-concocted lie...

> We oppose borrowing trillions and passing that debt onto future
> generations. >

But were all for it under Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Carter and Reagan when we
controlled both houses of congress!!!

> We oppose government pimping for the drug companies and the HMOs and the
> Enrons.>

However, our own outfits like Global Crossing are ok, and we are sure no
one's smart enough to note we pardon felons like Mark Rich, and recived more
contributions by number and dollar volume from rich donors than did
Republicans.

No, we liberals are just a bunch of lying hypocrites that simply can't
believe those idiots out in hayseed-land are allowed to vote.

>
> --
> 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

We had so much world sympathy after 9/11 but we have blown it

We have become what we hate most about others at least my miatas consumption
is good

On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 23:01:19 GMT, the following appeared in
rec.autos.makers.jeep+willys, posted by "Roy" <crawroy @
nbnet.nb.ca>:

>"Bob Casanova" > wrote in message
.. .

>> On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 15:37:42 -0600, the following appeared
>> in rec.autos.makers.jeep+willys, posted by "ccr"
>> >:

<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·cum·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

On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 22:09:47 -0600, the following appeared
in rec.autos.makers.jeep+willys, posted by "ccr"
>:

>"Bob Casanova" > wrote in message
.. .

>> On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 15:37:42 -0600, the following appeared
>> in rec.autos.makers.jeep+willys, posted by "ccr"
>> >:

<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

"Bob Casanova" > wrote in message
...
> 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

MARGIN--IE THE DIFFERENCE IN PERCENT BETWEEN THE WINNER AND THE NEXT NEAREST
OPPONENT. Get it now?

--
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


"Bob Casanova" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 22:09:47 -0600, the following appeared
> in rec.autos.makers.jeep+willys, posted by "ccr"
> >:
>
>>"Bob Casanova" > wrote in message
. ..
>
>>> On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 15:37:42 -0600, the following appeared
>>> in rec.autos.makers.jeep+willys, posted by "ccr"
>>> >:
>
> <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

"Charles Fregeau" > wrote in message
...
> >
>> --
>> 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.


If Clinton is a moron, then Bush is a turnip. Rhodes scholar versus Ivy
League legacy slacker. Self made man versus silver spoon failure.

Clinton gave us a booming economy, peace, budget surplusses, rising
standards of living across all income groups, plenty of jobs, restrained
medical costs, low inflation, the respect of the world, hope for the future,
safety of Social Security, etc, etc, etc.

Bush has given us lies, war, devastation, a badly strained military, death,
debt, falling living standards, zooming medical costs, zooming local taxes,
zooming insurance costs, third world child mortality, an environment under
siege, the contempt of the world, and a hotly divided country. He's been a
real prize.

--
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

What part of "percentage" don't you understand nitwit?

--
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


"SoK66" > wrote in message
...
>
> Anoter Tiresome Leftist ****** Spewed:
>
>> For an incumbent reelected, Bush had the smallest percentage margin of
>> victory. In other words, he just barely squeaked a win.>
>
> ...by 4 million votes!

"ccr" spewed in leftist rage:

".... Bush's percentage margin was pathetic. It has nothing to do with a
majority. "

Well, lasttime we looker 51% was more than 48%, and 60 million+ votes is
more than 56 million.

G.W. Bush's 3% margin was greater than that of Kenedy 1960 (.17%), Nixon
1968 (.7%), and Carter 1976 (2.06%).

Do you have a point to make, ****head, or are simply you content to prove
yourself just another Soreloserman dumbass?