9 Dec
2000
9 Dec
'00
2:08 p.m.
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
6:35 p.m.
I thought about getting some old punch card chad and selling it on
E-OverPay but I'm sure Gore would sue someone and claim that they were
really intended as votes for him!
Joe
At 06:56 PM 12/9/00 -0800, you wrote:
Hey you heard it here first :-)
--Chuck
At 07:08 PM 12/9/00 -0600, you wrote:
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
4:26 p.m.
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:
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
10 Dec
10 Dec
11:13 a.m.
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. Both are corporate
creatures, just different flavors. 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.
ciao larry
Reply to:
lgwalker(a)look.ca
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
11 Dec
11 Dec
4:21 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
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.)
5:57 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
8:09 a.m.
At 11:57 AM 12/11/00 -0500, Larry wrote:
My
apologies Joe. I thought this was political commentary which
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.
No problem. Sometimes it's hard to understand what's going on in other
countries, especially in the political systems.
Knee-jerk reaction. You can't watch TV without
something coming
up about the US election.
If you think it's bad there, you should be here! I've discovered news
channels that I never knew existed! The news media (at least in the US)
runs every story into the ground until the next story comes along and then
they drop it like a hot potato.
Joe
7:37 a.m.
The media should be flogged for their skewing of the election results...
On Monday 11 December 2000 13:09, you wrote:
If you think it's bad there, you should be
here! I've discovered news
channels that I never knew existed! The news media (at least in the US)
runs every story into the ground until the next story comes along and then
they drop it like a hot potato.
Don't you mean "The new media _ruins_ every story..." ? ;)
--
Bill Layer
Sales Technician
<b.layer(a)vikingelectronics.com>
6:28 a.m.
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. Both are corporate
creatures, just different flavors.
I think you're missing the point. Republicans don't pay for votes.
They pay good money to have votes thrown out or ignored. Of course,
that's only if they haven't spent enough money preventing "the wrong
people" from voting in the first place.
Eric
7:20 a.m.
"Eric J. Korpela" wrote:
I think you're missing the point. Republicans don't pay for votes.
They pay good money to have votes thrown out or ignored. Of course,
that's only if they haven't spent enough money preventing "the wrong
people" from voting in the first place.
Flame bait <sigh>.
7:22 a.m.
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. Both are corporate
creatures, just different flavors.
I think you're missing the point. Republicans don't pay for votes.
They pay good money to have votes thrown out or ignored. Of course,
that's only if they haven't spent enough money preventing "the wrong
people" from voting in the first place.
8:17 a.m.
At 09:28 AM 12/11/00 -0800, Eric wrote:
Just FWIW, if that's the case then the Republicans failed. The voter
turnout here was staggering. Some areas had as high as a 98% turnout.
That's amazing considering that 40% is typical. I wonder how long it will
be till we have a 130+% turnout like Chicago under Richard (Vote Early and
Vote Often) Daily?
I remember something from Political Science class along the lines of,
people elect Democrats to get the benefits of big government. Then they
elect Republicans to protect themselves from other people's Democrats.
Joe
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. Both are corporate
creatures, just different flavors.
I think you're missing the point. Republicans don't pay for votes.
They pay good money to have votes thrown out or ignored. Of course,
that's only if they haven't spent enough money preventing "the wrong
people" from voting in the first place.
8619
days inactive
8621
days old
12 comments
8 participants
participants (8)
-
b.layer＠vikingelectronics.com -
cmcmanis＠mcmanis.com -
jfoust＠threedee.com -
korpela＠ellie.ssl.berkeley.edu -
lgwalker＠look.ca -
marvin＠rain.org -
rigdonj＠intellistar.net -
spectre＠stockholm.ptloma.edu