re: Imagine
Bill Stewart wrote: The "bunch of elementary school kids had no trouble" press release is fun, but bogus. If the teacher had told the kids "Vote for Gore and Lieberman" instead of "Vote for Gore", they'd have been much more likely to make a mistake. More likely, maybe, but not "much more likely." Now if the kids had been told "Vote for the Miscreant," or "Vote for the Statist," that's a different matter. Too bad they weren't told to "Vote for Who Needs Killing."
Re: Imagine
Anonymous wrote: Ken Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: And what's more some of these non-existent female professors even have web pages. Sorry. Care to name one? prominent non-teaching posts. Uppsala has large numbers of female "Doktorand", who I presume are what here in England we'd call "lecturer." For most of the readers of this list, they would be "professor". Doctoral student. On the web pages I quoted in the posting you are replying to: http://www.uu.se/Adresser/Directory/HS.html#HS (Economic History) http://www.uu.se/Adresser/Directory/deps/HH8.html (History) we have references to Prof Ragnhild Lundstrvm, who I assume from the name is a woman. But, as I said, their are dozens of references to other female academics there who, to the Americans on the list) would count as "professors". Heck, in France, schoolteachers can be called Prof. Not that it matters because I doubt if anyone seriously thinks that that spoof has been anywhere near either Uppsala or Zimbabwe. It is still funny though. Ken
re: Imagine
Title: FW: A view from the developing world 1. Imagine that we read of an election occurring anywhere in the third world in which the self-declared winner was the son of the former prime minister and that former prime minister was himself the former head of that nation's secret police (CIA). Correction. He was declared the winner by the fact that he hasreceived 271 of the needed 270 electoral votes. Let's beaccuratePlease!2. Imagine that the self-declared winner lost the popular vote but won based on some old colonial holdover (Electoral College) from the nation's pre-democracy past. 1. This country is a republic, not a democracy. 2.The electoral college was designed to protect states rights, it is not a colonial holdover. It is interesting that leading up to the election, democrats were afraid thatPrince Al (as the democrats would like to viewhim) was going to win on the electoral vote but lose the popular vote. At that time the republicans were silent but the dem's were spinning and spinning that the electoral college is the"law of the land" and we must abide by the law. Funny when things do go as expected for the dem's how they canreverse their spin so quickly. Bottom line. IT IS THE LAW!!! 3. Imagine that the self-declared winner's 'victory' turned on disputed votes cast in a province governed by his brother! Again, let's work with facts - About 1% of the ballots that the machines registered as "no president vote" in Dade county.Prince Al claims that these have never been counter. Realitycheck: In the past elections in 92 and 96, Dade county showed about 1% of the ballots registered as "no vote for president". In the exit polls for Dade county there were an estimated count of 1% that claimed to not have voted for president. Prince Al would have us believe that if the ballot is punched for democrats but only a scratch on the card (note a scratch that only a democrat canvassing board member can see) means a vote for Prince Al. However, the truth is the only ballots that have not been counted in Florida, are the thousands of Military absentee ballots that the democrat "mob" has managed to get rejected PRIOR to any count. 4. Imagine that the poorly drafted ballots of one district, a district heavily favoring the self-declared winner's opponent, led thousands of voters to vote for the wrong candidate. A Ballot designed by the losing candidates party members, approved by the losing candidates party and campaign staff, andis the same ballot layout used in that county in 1996 without complaint, and is the same ballotthat when given to 4 grade children 98% were able to figure it out.Finally, if a ballot is a secret vote, and that once cast cannot be traced back to the individual voter, how the ^#$% can the dem's claim that these people knew they voted for the wrong person? If they knew they made a mistake, the "CONFUSING BALLOT" had these strange words on it along with signs in the polling place, that the voter could request a new ballot. 5. Imagine that members of that nation's most despised caste, fearing for their lives/livelihoods, turned out in record numbers to vote in near-universal opposition to the self-declared winner's candidacy. This item makes no sense at all except it doesecho the words of who has to be the writers greatest heroVladimir Iljitsh Uljanov (Lenin). 6. Imagine that state police operating under the authority of the self-declared winner's brother intercepted hundreds of members of that most-despised caste on their way to the polls.see answer to item 5 above.i.e. BULL@@$#$7. Imagine that six million people voted in the disputed province and that the self-declared winner's 'lead' was only 327 votes. Fewer, certainly, than the vote counting machines' margin of error.and even after a recount, and hand recount with democrat operatives managing the hand recount still had thelegally declared winner as the winner. 8. Imagine that the self-declared winner and his political party opposed a more careful by-hand inspection and re-counting of the ballots in the disputed province or in its most hotly disputed district. You know it is interesting that people who claim some level of intelligencecan not see thevote engineering that was attempted by democrat operatives in some counties in an attempt to STEAL the election from the rightful winner. We have had a count,a recount, a rerecount, and the same guy won each time. Al lost. GET OVER IT! 9. Imagine that the self-declared winner, himself a governor of a major province, had the worst human rights record of any province in his nation and actually led the nation in executions. This statement is beneath contempt. 10. Imagine that a major campaign promise of the self-declared winner was to appoint like-minded human rights
re: Imagine
I guess you realize this is satire, but lets be accurate! 1. W won't actually be declared the winner until January 6th. Until then, he is therefore self-declared. 2. That's democracy as in "the absence of hereditary or arbitrary class distinctions or privilege," and having some say in how the republic is governed. The Electoral College was in part created to safeguard the powers of the smaller colonies. If America hadn't already been parceled up into colonies, it is doubtful that they would have come up with the Electoral College. 3. The "fact" that votes were not counted previously (when there was a clear winner) is not germain (what do the damn Germans have to do with this?) to the question of who in this case received the most votes. The number of ballots needed to say this is disputed is a small fraction of those 1% of ballots that a machine could not read. These are ballots that a republican "mob" are attempting to reject from the count. So basically, you're saying that people who most likely vote republican but can't follow instructions should be counted, but people who most likely vote democrat but can't follow instructions should not? 4. One would think that the appropriate credentials for designing a ballot would be human factors training, not party affiliation. It was probably crystal clear to them what the ballot said. I'm sure math teachers can read each others tests, but that doesn't really address whether the test is fair for the students. Again, past results which were not scrutinized hardly constitute a valid argument as to the effectiveness of the ballot. Remembering which hole you punched is not related to how you decided which hole to punch. 5. Is it not true that minorities turned out in record numbers and most of them voted democrat? If all else fails, call them a commie! Do the words "ad hominem" come to mind? 6. Are you saying the state police are commies? 7. Again the original statement is true. The margin of victory was less than the margin of error. And yet someone declared themself the winner. Any hand recounts performed (and some were not performed, others stopped) were in full view of republican operatives. 8. Again the original statement is true. Of course the result of two machine counts jibe, it would be really scary if it didn't. If you're going declare a winner based on the machine count, and the machine count has an error rate greater than the difference, it is a tie. A more accurate count requires a more accurate machine (i.e. a human). If you can document a case of tampering, I suggest you take it to the appropriate authorities. 9. Which part is false? 10. Again which part is false? You simply changed the subject. I'm sure Newt or Delay are very interested in bridging the gulf with Clinton! This Nixon thing amuses me. Nixon arguably lost the popular vote, was behind in electoral votes, and disputing Illinois would have brought him that much closer to winning. In this case, Bush lost the popular (not as arguably) vote, and without Florida is losing in electoral votes. Who should have conceded? Ashcroft conceded for political reasons, not for the country. While it is probably important to some people in Missouri, most of the country doesn't know who Missouri's senators are. He would have been contesting a grieving widow and the memory of a the Govenor. From one misguided minion to another
Re: Imagine
At 11:45 AM 11/28/00 +, Ken Brown wrote: Which is exactly what the current US situation looks like to most people outside the US. It presumably seems different to the Americans themselves (or at least the Republican voters amongst them), but to the rest of us the whole thing cuts heavily at Bush's credibility Oh, my - you're saying that Bush has *credibility* in the rest of the world? :-) This reminds me more of the tail-wagging-the-dog situations that parliamentary systems get into when some minor religious party or right-wing-wackos or the Monster Raving Loonie party gets to tell the bigger party what to do because they need three more seats for their coalition. Too bad Florida has a winner-takes-all system - under proportional representation they'd have been done weeks ago, with one electoral vote for Nader, 12 for Gore, and 12 for Bush, and that would fairly accurately reflect the opinions of Florida's voters, unlike the current situation where the margin of error in the counts is much wider than the difference between the totals. And it's not even available as a compromise, because Gore's in the lead without the Florida votes, so that would give him the election. Thanks! Bill Bill Stewart, [EMAIL PROTECTED] PGP Fingerprint D454 E202 CBC8 40BF 3C85 B884 0ABE 4639
Re: Imagine
No User [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: A history professor from Uppsala Universitet in Sweden, called to tell me about this article she had read Uppsala Universitet has no female history professors. Sorry.
