11 Dec
2000
11 Dec
'00
10:57 a.m.
At 05:13 PM 12/10/00 -0500, Larry wrote:
That's very true. In fact, the Republicans are usually better
funded
since they are typically pro big business and they get MASSIVE
contributions from them. But my previous comment was about the price
of chad and how much the Democrats spend per vote and I never made any
observation about how much the two partys spent relative to each
other. EVERYONE in this country realizes that if the situation was
reversed (the Democrats slightly ahead and the Republicans behind)
then the Republicans would be doing that same sort of things to change
the outcome.
"Excited States"? Hmmm. You obviously believe everything that you
see on
the TV news. With very few exceptions, the news people are the only
ones excited. For 99.99% of the country it's business as usual. I
should say that most of the people on this list are from the "Excited
States". Have you noticed any decrease in traffic here since the
recent elections? I haven't.
Both are corporate
My apologies Joe. I thought this was political commentary which
LOL! I'd heard that it cost the Democrats an
average of $30 per
vote so the price sounds about right.
Joe
At 07:08 PM 12/9/00 -0600, you wrote:
BRRAAP. As a foreign observer who like most look on in horror at
a win by another Bush Republican Yahoo and who usually avoid
political comment with denizens of the Excited States (among the most
naive voters in the world) I can only suggest that the Republican
campaign was equally well funded.
Florida ballot Hollerith card chad is going for $20-40 +$3-7 S/H
on eBay. In some cases, the *single* chad is behind glass in its
own 8x10 frame.
- John
creatures, just different flavors.
True again. My opinion of the Democrats and Republicans are that
they
are like the two sides of the same coind. They're more alike than
different. If you want different then look at the Green's party or
some of the other third partys.
Let's restrict political commentary
to political newsgroups or lists so I don't
always have to bite my
tongue and avoid retching. What goes over with the "good ol' boys in
Texas or Louisiana" can be laughable or offensive internationally.
You can be sure that we view many foreign political events and
elections the same way. The LOONNGG running treat of Quebec to succeed
from Canada is a good example. My comment on that one is to be
carefull what you wish for, it may come true!
In the mean time, lighten up! Both the previous messages were meant
to
be humerous and not serious political commentary!
Joe
(just for the record, I didn't vote for either of them. I voted for
one
of the third party candidates.)
from time-to-time has reared it's contentious head,
sometimes in
the form of bad humour. And yes the complex Quebec situation is
bewildering and not only to non-Canadians.
Knee-jerk reaction. You can't watch TV without something coming
up about the US election.
ciao larry
Reply to:
lgwalker(a)look.ca