Re: [QUAD-L] election

[QuadPirate]

 Sounds pretty good to me and Ms Hienz only paid 12.7% in taxes due to loopholes.
I also think they should all have a cap on campaign funds and all get the exact same amount and none from any business I think the tax payers should pay it then they might actually act like humans.
 
Mark 
 
---Original Message---
 

From: Stuntman
Date: Sunday, November 07, 2004 20:43:12
To: QuadPirate; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [QUAD-L] election
 If you're going for a real flat tax with only charitable contribution deductions, it would work if they set the bottom at 25% of everything over $50,000 (ex kerry only paid something like 16% last year due to all the write-offs and loopholes). Businesses would still need a way to deduct real expenses like R&D and equipment etc, but advertisement expenses shouldn't be allowed for drug companies etc, and no company should be able to deduct more than 10% of their gross for the same.As another reform, lets eliminate tax exemptions for 527s (if they got any), set a max for campaign finance, and give networks a set tax break for political spots, but they must supply EVERY candidate with equal time. Debates should include third parties and be arbitrated by a true neutral party, (the debates this year were so biased it was a sham). CEO's shouldn't make more than 10X the lowest paid employee.Corporations shouldn't be allowed to own sports teams as a tax write off.How am I doing so far?Stuntman> > > It just doesn't seem that complicated.> Why shouldn't everyone pay the same, that seems like the way it should be> any ways.> > Mark > > ---Original Message---> > From: Jim Lubin> Date: Sunday, November 07, 2004 14:34:39> To: QuadPirate; [EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: [QUAD-L] election> > Something we agree on, a flat tax. I say around a 35% flat tax for everyone> and exempt the first $100,000. That sound fair to me. Only deductions are> for charitable contributions to encourage giving. There can even be an> option to pay more to the government. During the campaigning I saw several> Hollywood people saying they didn't need a tax break. Fine if they want to> pay more than 35% of their income to the government then they can. > > At 11:19 AM 11/7/2004, QuadPirate wrote:> > This tax subject and over hauling it should be easier than they say, let's> just have a flat tax for everyone> but then his rich voters would come unglued. I'm so tired of these rich> people getting all the breaks and have everything they'll ever need and more> but they think they should pay less than people that have nothing and we> continue to let this happen because they are the people paying for these> campaigns and the tax cut is their payoff.> > -- It's not the fall that hurts.Home page http://tnthompson0.tripod.com/homeincyberspace/Graphics portfolio http://tnthompson1.tripod.com/index.htmDomain space http://nw-in.com/index.html. 







  IncrediMail - Email has finally evolved - Click Here

Re: [QUAD-L] election

[Tod E. Santee]

Last time I was saying, "Let the system work."  This time I'm saying,
"Let the system work."  The electoral college still has to vote whether
Kerry conceded or not.  "Let the system work" doesn't sound like whining
to me...!
What should I whine about?  How about NOT
letting the system work.  Like 2000 when the FL Elections Supervisor,
Katherine Harris, also served as the FL Bush Campaign Chair.  That
seems like it ought to be illegal !!  So sure I'll whine.
Harris blew thousands of people off the voter rolls because they shared
the same name as a former felon, or same birthdate, or just
plain same surname.  85,000 voters were "scrubbed" from the
voter rolls without notification, then turned away at the polls. 
Yep, I'll whine.
That list of 58,000 voters turned out to be 95% incorrect...
55,100 votes denied to eligible voters with no recourse... I'll whine!
Gore "lost" by 587 votes when the Supremes halted a recount.  The
error rate for the FL system turned out to be 15%... a total of 8,500 votes
in error one way or another (Dem --> Rep  or  Rep --> Dem) but
587 wins the race!  Still sound like a "working system" ??
93,000 votes for Nader... no problem.  58,000 people unfairly prevented
from voting... THAT is a problem to whine about.  AND FIX!
How do we fix it?  Hold Kathrine, the Sec. of State, Election Supervisor,
and Bush Campaign Director accountable?  That sounds reasonable to
me
... Bolstering her campaiign for Congresswomen in the 2002 race after
winning the race for Bush?   Yep... More to whine
about if you can't get anyone to actually FIX the problem.
I'm just advocating letting the electoral system work... as it's written...
and hope those electors who can legally vote Kerry,
even if they were chosen to vote for Bush, will come to their senses (that
part is my opinion... the rest above is verified fact!) and cast a fair
vote without feeling pressured to vote either way by force of money, power,
or losing their respective positions.  After all, the electors ARE
Voters in the USA... a Free Country where "every vote counts."

That's not a whine, Stuntman... That's a request to let the law work as
it was intended.  Can we lobby... sure.  Can we coerce or threaten...
No!! (Even though those undecided ones have been threatened here in this
great country if they vote "the wrong way.")
Best regards,
Tod
Stuntman wrote:
You mean they didn't count your vote?
BTW Last selection (2000), people whined that Gore should have won
with
the ~500,000 popular vote margin and that a conspiracy stole the
election in Florida.
Now we have a clear winner by both Popular vote and Electoral college
vote and I'm hearing the same old whine.
http://www.brookesnews.com/040811bushwin.html
It is over, now we have a President with no reason to bend to any
political whim because neither he nor the VP will be running next time.
So lets band together, write your Senator to get S. 1394 (the Money
Follows the Person Act) passed and submitted to the President.
If we see any hesitation by any member, (I for one will try to catch
the vote on C-Span) we can launch an e-mail program to every person
in
their State if we have too. This is one Bill that will effect almost
everyone who lives long enough.
Let's quit the whinning and do something.
If you haven't contacted your Senator yet, DO IT!
S. 1394
Do it now.
Stuntman
> Mark,
>
> I agree... Bush did not win by 3 million votes in the US, he won
by
> 130,000 votes (less than my city population) in Ohio.
>
> I'm tired of my vote not counting... It really doesn't if I live
in
> Arizona and keep hearing "Ohio will decide this election," or Florida,
> or Pennsylvania, or New Hampshire, or Iowa.  Why shouldn't my
vote
> really help "decide" an election?  Why did 537 FL votes decide
it in
> 2000 when the "error" rate will always be much higher than 537 votes
snip

Re: [QUAD-L] election

[Stacy Harim]

I whole heartedly agree about the neutral party. I think that if the 
independent party got someone in there that most of the population didn’t think 
was a joke would be great.  Especially since I am independent and very much 
down the middle of the road in political views.  I have to admit that I 
haven't seen a republican that I have wanted in any office except our 
congressman who is very much involved in helping the people.  His office 
has done great things for me in helping me with my housing problems.  He is 
the only republican I have voted for since I started voting.
Stacy
 
"People who hate you do not win unless you hate them. Then you destroy 
yourself"

  - Original Message - 
  From: Stuntman 
  To: QuadPirate ; [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  Sent: Sunday, November 07, 2004 9:43 
  PM
  Subject: Re: [QUAD-L] election
  If you're going for a real flat tax with only charitable 
  contribution deductions, it would work if they set the bottom at 25% of 
  everything over $50,000 (ex kerry only paid something like 16% last year 
  due to all the write-offs and loopholes). Businesses would still need a 
  way to deduct real expenses like R&D and equipment etc, but 
  advertisement expenses shouldn't be allowed for drug companies etc, and no 
  company should be able to deduct more than 10% of their gross for the 
  same.As another reform, lets eliminate tax exemptions for 527s (if they 
  got any), set a max for campaign finance, and give networks a set tax 
  break for political spots, but they must supply EVERY candidate with equal 
  time. Debates should include third parties and be arbitrated by a true 
  neutral party, (the debates this year were so biased it was a sham). 
  CEO's shouldn't make more than 10X the lowest paid 
  employee.Corporations shouldn't be allowed to own sports teams as a tax 
  write off.How am I doing so far?Stuntman> > > 
  It just doesn't seem that complicated.> Why shouldn't everyone pay the 
  same, that seems like the way it should be> any ways.> 
  > Mark >  > ---Original 
  Message--->  > From: Jim Lubin> Date: Sunday, 
  November 07, 2004 14:34:39> To: QuadPirate; [EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: 
  Re: [QUAD-L] election>  > Something we agree on, a flat 
  tax. I say around a 35% flat tax for everyone> and exempt the first 
  $100,000. That sound fair to me. Only deductions are> for 
  charitable contributions to encourage giving. There can even be an> 
  option to pay more to the government. During the campaigning I saw 
  several> Hollywood people saying they didn't need a tax break. Fine 
  if they want to> pay more than 35% of their income to the 
  government then they can. > > At 11:19 AM 11/7/2004, QuadPirate 
  wrote:> > This tax subject and over hauling it should be easier 
  than they say, let's> just have a flat tax for everyone> but 
  then his rich voters would come unglued. I'm so tired of these 
  rich> people getting all the breaks and have everything they'll 
  ever need and more> but they think they should pay less than people 
  that have nothing and we> continue to let this happen because they 
  are the people paying for these> campaigns and the tax cut is their 
  payoff.>  > -- It's not the fall that 
  hurts.Home page http://tnthompson0.tripod.com/homeincyberspace/Graphics 
  portfolio http://tnthompson1.tripod.com/index.htmDomain 
  space http://nw-in.com/index.html

Re: [QUAD-L] election

[Stuntman]

You mean they didn't count your vote?
BTW Last selection (2000), people whined that Gore should have won with 
the ~500,000 popular vote margin and that a conspiracy stole the 
election in Florida.
Now we have a clear winner by both Popular vote and Electoral college 
vote and I'm hearing the same old whine.

http://www.brookesnews.com/040811bushwin.html

It is over, now we have a President with no reason to bend to any 
political whim because neither he nor the VP will be running next time.
So lets band together, write your Senator to get S. 1394 (the Money 
Follows the Person Act) passed and submitted to the President.
If we see any hesitation by any member, (I for one will try to catch 
the vote on C-Span) we can launch an e-mail program to every person in 
their State if we have too. This is one Bill that will effect almost 
everyone who lives long enough.
Let's quit the whinning and do something.
If you haven't contacted your Senator yet, DO IT!
S. 1394
Do it now.
 
Stuntman 
> Mark,
> 
> I agree... Bush did not win by 3 million votes in the US, he won by
> 130,000 votes (less than my city population) in Ohio.
> 
> I'm tired of my vote not counting... It really doesn't if I live in
> Arizona and keep hearing "Ohio will decide this election," or Florida,
> or Pennsylvania, or New Hampshire, or Iowa.  Why shouldn't my vote
> really help "decide" an election?  Why did 537 FL votes decide it in
> 2000 when the "error" rate will always be much higher than 537 votes 
out
> of over 103,000,000 cast?  In fact, it's higher than the usual /
> expected state error rate.
> 
> 
> 
> QuadPirate wrote:
> 
> >
>   Tod it should stay out but there's no doubt who went to polls for
>   Bush in the mid west at least.The war wasn't a big issue because
>   neither one was going to just pull out we're building
>   permanentmilitary bases there right now.I don't like the fact that
>   they said moral values won this election like if you're not a
>   christian you don't have values that's a bunch of crap I have more
>   values than a lot of people I know that go to church. This tax
>   subject and over hauling it should be easier than they say, let's
>   just have a flat tax for everyonebut then his rich voters would come
>   unglued. I'm so tired of these rich people getting all the breaks 
and
>   have everything they'll ever need and more but they think they 
should
>   pay less than people that have nothing and we continue to let this
>   happen because they are the people paying for these campaigns and 
the
>   tax cut is their payoff. You know what is bugging me is the 
electoral
>   votes because I was watching some news program and they said Bush 
won
>   Ohio only by around 130,000 votes even though the popular vote he 
won
>   by was 3 million and some change so Bush could've won the popular
>   vote by almost 3 million and still lost the election there's
>   something wrong about that.So this election really would've been a
>   mess if that would've happened.  Mark
>   ---Original Message---
> 
>   From: Tod E. Santee
>   Date: Saturday, November 06, 2004 18:56:06
>   To: Jim Lubin
>   Cc: Quad List
>   Subject: Re: [QUAD-L] election
>Jim,
> 
>   First, this "church crap" should stay out of ANY official campaign
>   material and debates... And I'm an Evang. Christian!
> 
>  >  Evangelical Christians alone? I doubt it. How about the military 
and
>  >  the people making more than $200,000/yr that Kerry promised to tax
>  >  more to pay for, among other things, abortions for anyone woman 
who
>  >  wants one. He said it in the second debate. The defining marriage
>  >  amendments were only on ballots in 11 states, including Oregon who
>  >  voted for the marriage amendment and also for Kerry. See, I don't
>  >  push my Christian agenda on anyone here or anywhere else... and
>  >  neither should any candidate, campaign, or elected official.  I
>  >  can't tell a gay/lesbian they CAN'T get married because MY 
religion
>  >  is against it... Just like I can't tell women they have to keep
>  >  their heads covered during prayer because the Bible says so.
>  >
>  >  As for Nader... He shot himself in the foot when, even as his own
>  >  party wouldn't support him... in fact begged him NOT to run, he
>  >  arrogantly went on with it (as I believe he should have IF he 
really
>  >  believed he could make a difference) as if he was a real 
candidate.
>  >  I used to respect him... support him.  But this time, he knew he
>  >  didn't count.  Even with the Republican support

Re: [QUAD-L] election

[Stuntman]

If you're going for a real flat tax with only charitable contribution 
deductions, it would work if they set the bottom at 25% of everything 
over $50,000 (ex kerry only paid something like 16% last year due to 
all the write-offs and loopholes). Businesses would still need a way to 
deduct real expenses like R&D and equipment etc, but advertisement 
expenses shouldn't be allowed for drug companies etc, and no company 
should be able to deduct more than 10% of their gross for the same.
As another reform, lets eliminate tax exemptions for 527s (if they got 
any), set a max for campaign finance, and give networks a set tax break 
for political spots, but they must supply EVERY candidate with equal 
time. Debates should include third parties and be arbitrated by a true 
neutral party, (the debates this year were so biased it was a sham). 
CEO's shouldn't make more than 10X the lowest paid employee.
Corporations shouldn't be allowed to own sports teams as a tax write 
off.
How am I doing so far?
Stuntman
> 
> 
> It just doesn't seem that complicated.
> Why shouldn't everyone pay the same, that seems like the way it 
should be
> any ways.
> 
> Mark 
>  
> ---Original Message---
>  
> From: Jim Lubin
> Date: Sunday, November 07, 2004 14:34:39
> To: QuadPirate; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [QUAD-L] election
>  
> Something we agree on, a flat tax. I say around a 35% flat tax for 
everyone
> and exempt the first $100,000. That sound fair to me. Only deductions 
are
> for charitable contributions to encourage giving. There can even be an
> option to pay more to the government. During the campaigning I saw 
several
> Hollywood people saying they didn't need a tax break. Fine if they 
want to
> pay more than 35% of their income to the government then they can. 
> 
> At 11:19 AM 11/7/2004, QuadPirate wrote:
> 
> This tax subject and over hauling it should be easier than they say, 
let's
> just have a flat tax for everyone
> but then his rich voters would come unglued. I'm so tired of these 
rich
> people getting all the breaks and have everything they'll ever need 
and more
> but they think they should pay less than people that have nothing and 
we
> continue to let this happen because they are the people paying for 
these
> campaigns and the tax cut is their payoff.
>  
> 

-- 
It's not the fall that hurts.
Home page http://tnthompson0.tripod.com/homeincyberspace/
Graphics portfolio http://tnthompson1.tripod.com/index.htm
Domain space http://nw-in.com/index.html

Re: [QUAD-L] election

[Stuntman]

Just for the heck of it, a good read which might open an eye or two:
http://www.brookesnews.com/040811bushwin.html

> 
> It came down to Ohio's 20 Electoral votes deciding because they had 
already 
> called Arizona's 10 votes (where Bush got 55%, Kerry got 44%) and 
> Arkansas's 6 votes (Bush 54%, Kerry 45%) for Bush.
> 
> If they just make the poll close at the same time across the country, 
6pm 
> in Hawaii/11pm in the East, then all the votes would be counted at 
the same 
> time and it wouldn't look like 1 state decided for the rest.
> 
> At 12:43 PM 11/7/2004, QuadPirate wrote:
> >I hear you Tod, I live in Ark and I felt the same way.
> >
> >Mark

Re: [QUAD-L] election

[Jim Lubin]

If all the polls closed at the same time then the media
couldn't call the East coast states while the West cost is still voting.
All votes would be counted at the same time so no single state would look
like it determined the outcome. 
We heard it would come down to OH or FL based on polling information,
which turned out to be pretty accurate, showing which states would go
which way.
At 01:30 PM 11/7/2004, Tod E. Santee wrote:
Wouldn't "look
like" ... even if it did.  That's another problem
of its own.  We heard for weeks it would come down to Florida or
Ohio.  So what we really would find out is: 
  "Was it OH or
FL"  or whichever states it is that year. 
Maybe it always was that way  we just hear it quicker now. 
Best! 
Tod 
Jim Lubin wrote: 
It came down to Ohio's 20
Electoral votes deciding because they had already called Arizona's 10
votes (where Bush got 55%, Kerry got 44%) and Arkansas's 6 votes (Bush
54%, Kerry 45%) for Bush. 
If they just make the poll close at the same time across the country, 6pm
in Hawaii/11pm in the East, then all the votes would be counted at the
same time and it wouldn't look like 1 state decided for the rest.

At 12:43 PM 11/7/2004, QuadPirate wrote: 
I hear you Tod, I live in Ark
and I felt the same way. 
Mark

Re: [QUAD-L] election

[Tod E. Santee]

Still, it might be interesting to see how those undecided electors cast
their ballots.  In 12 states, they aren't required to cast for the
party they were originally pledged to!
Even in those states where it's required, the worst penalty is
a $10,000 fine.  Chump change for most who are selected as electors.
I don't know if any Dems are undecided but I've heard interviews with
Rep undecideds.
I don't agree with the electoral system, but since it's what we have
to work with... we still can help persuade.
Best to All!
Tod
QuadPirate wrote:






Very
True Jim but he lost by more than 6 or 7 electoral votes combined.I was
watching CNN on election night and they were talking about how it it
could've turned out as a tie with the electoral votes at 269 each and Congress
would've had to determine the turnout and we could've had a Bush and
Edwards decision.Now wouldn't have that been interesting? Mark  
---Original Message---
 

From: Jim
Lubin

Date: Sunday, November 07,
2004 15:24:19

To: QuadPirate;
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Subject: Re: [QUAD-L] election

 It came down to Ohio's 20 Electoral votes deciding
because they had already called Arizona's 10 votes (where Bush got 55%,
Kerry got 44%) and Arkansas's 6 votes (Bush 54%, Kerry 45%) for Bush. 
If they just make the poll close at the same time across
the country, 6pm in Hawaii/11pm in the East, then all the votes would be
counted at the same time and it wouldn't look like 1 state decided for
the rest.
At 12:43 PM 11/7/2004, QuadPirate wrote:
I hear you Tod,
I live in Ark and I felt the same way.
Mark 
---Original Message---
From: Tod
E. Santee
Date: Sunday, November 07, 2004 14:25:30
To: QuadPirate
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED];
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [QUAD-L] election
Mark, 
I agree... Bush did not win by 3 million votes in the
US, he won by 130,000 votes (less than my city population) in Ohio. 
I'm tired of my vote not counting... It really doesn't
if I live in Arizona and keep hearing "Ohio will decide this
election," or Florida, or Pennsylvania, or New Hampshire, or Iowa. 
Why shouldn't my vote really help "decide" an election? 
Why did 537 FL votes decide it in 2000 when the "error" rate will always
be much higher than 537 votes out of over 103,000,000 cast?  In fact,
it's higher than the usual / expected state error rate. 
 
 
QuadPirate wrote: 
 
Tod it should stay out but there's no doubt who went
to polls for Bush in the mid west at least.The war wasn't a big issue because
neither one was going to just pull out we're building permanentmilitary
bases there right now.I don't like the fact that they said moral values
won this election like if you're not a christian you don't have values
that's a bunch of crap I have more values than a lot of people I know that
go to church. This tax subject and over hauling it should be easier than
they say, let's just have a flat tax for everyonebut then his rich voters
would come unglued. I'm so tired of these rich people getting all the breaks
and have everything they'll ever need and more but they think they should
pay less than people that have nothing and we continue to let this happen
because they are the people paying for these campaigns and the tax cut
is their payoff. You know what is bugging me is the electoral votes because
I was watching some news program and they said Bush won Ohio only by around
130,000 votes even though the popular vote he won by was 3 million and
some change so Bush could've won the popular vote by almost 3 million and
still lost the election there's something wrong about that.So this election
really would've been a mess if that would've happened.  Mark 
---Original Message---
From: Tod
E. Santee
Date: Saturday, November 06, 2004 18:56:06
To: Jim Lubin
Cc: Quad
List
Subject: Re: [QUAD-L] election
 Jim, 
First, this "church crap" should stay out of ANY official
campaign material and debates... And I'm an Evang. Christian! 
Evangelical Christians
alone? I doubt it. How about the military and the people making more than
$200,000/yr that Kerry promised to tax more to pay for, among other things,
abortions for anyone woman who wants one. He said it in the second debate.
The defining marriage amendments were only on ballots in 11 states, including
Oregon who voted for the marriage amendment and also for Kerry. See, I
don't push my Christian agenda on anyone here or anywhere else... and neither
should any candidate, campaign, or elected official.  I can't tell
a gay/lesbian they CAN'T get married because MY religion is against it...
Just like I can't tell women they have to keep their heads
covered during prayer because the Bible says so. 
As for Nader... He shot himself in the foot when, even
as his own party wouldn't supp

Re: [QUAD-L] election

[QuadPirate]

Very True Jim but he lost by more than 6 or 7 electoral votes combined.
I was watching CNN on election night and they were talking about how it 
it could've turned out as a tie with the electoral votes at 269 each and 
Congress would've had to determine the turnout and we could've had a Bush 
and Edwards decision.
Now wouldn't have that been interesting?
 
Mark 
 
---Original Message---
 

From: Jim Lubin
Date: Sunday, November 07, 2004 15:24:19
To: QuadPirate; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [QUAD-L] election
 It came down to Ohio's 20 Electoral votes deciding because they had already called Arizona's 10 votes (where Bush got 55%, Kerry got 44%) and Arkansas's 6 votes (Bush 54%, Kerry 45%) for Bush. If they just make the poll close at the same time across the country, 6pm in Hawaii/11pm in the East, then all the votes would be counted at the same time and it wouldn't look like 1 state decided for the rest.At 12:43 PM 11/7/2004, QuadPirate wrote:
I hear you Tod, I live in Ark and I felt the same way. Mark  ---Original Message--- From: Tod E. SanteeDate: Sunday, November 07, 2004 14:25:30To: QuadPirateCc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: [QUAD-L] election Mark, I agree... Bush did not win by 3 million votes in the US, he won by 130,000 votes (less than my city population) in Ohio. I'm tired of my vote not counting... It really doesn't if I live in Arizona and keep hearing "Ohio will decide this election," or Florida, or Pennsylvania, or New Hampshire, or Iowa.  Why shouldn't my vote really help "decide" an election?  Why did 537 FL votes decide it in 2000 when the "error" rate will always be much higher than 537 votes out of over 103,000,000 cast?  In fact, it's higher than the usual / expected state error rate.     QuadPirate wrote: 
Tod it should stay out but there's no doubt who went to polls for Bush in the mid west at least.The war wasn't a big issue because neither one was going to just pull out we're building permanentmilitary bases there right now.I don't like the fact that they said moral values won this election like if you're not a christian you don't have values that's a bunch of crap I have more values than a lot of people I know that go to church. This tax subject and over hauling it should be easier than they say, let's just have a flat tax for everyonebut then his rich voters would come unglued. I'm so tired of these rich people getting all the breaks and have everything they'll ever need and more but they think they should pay less than people that have nothing and we continue to let this happen because they are the people paying for these campaigns and the tax cut is their payoff. You know what is bugging me is the electoral votes because I was watching some news program and they said Bush won Ohio only by around 130,000 votes even though the popular vote he won by was 3 million and some change so Bush could've won the popular vote by almost 3 million and still lost the election there's something wrong about that.So this election really would've been a mess if that would've happened.  Mark  ---Original Message---  From: Tod E. SanteeDate: Saturday, November 06, 2004 18:56:06To: Jim LubinCc: Quad ListSubject: Re: [QUAD-L] election Jim,  First, this "church crap" should stay out of ANY official campaign material and debates... And I'm an Evang. Christian!  
Evangelical Christians alone? I doubt it. How about the military and the people making more than $200,000/yr that Kerry promised to tax more to pay for, among other things, abortions for anyone woman who wants one. He said it in the second debate. The defining marriage amendments were only on ballots in 11 states, including Oregon who voted for the marriage amendment and also for Kerry. See, I don't push my Christian agenda on anyone here or anywhere else... and neither should any candidate, campaign, or elected official.  I can't tell a gay/lesbian they CAN'T get married because MY religion is against it... Just like I can't tell women they have to keep their heads covered during prayer because the Bible says so.  As for Nader... He shot himself in the foot when, even as his own party wouldn't support him... in fact begged him NOT to run, he arrogantly went on with it (as I believe he should have IF he really believed he could make a difference) as if he was a real candidate.  I used to respect him... support him.  But this time, he knew he didn't count.  Even with the Republican support for him and the Dems pushing against him (all that proving HIS point) he resulted in a less-than-zero vote percent.  Pathetic!  As far as who was voted for and against in '92, Perot's voters in '92 were voting both FOR Perot and AGAINST both Bush and Clinton.  So, if yo

Re: [QUAD-L] election

[Tod E. Santee]

Wouldn't "look like" ... even if it did.  That's
another problem of its own.  We heard for weeks it would come down
to Florida or Ohio.  So what we really would find out is:
  "Was it OH or
FL"  or whichever states it is that year.
Maybe it always was that way  we just hear it quicker now.
Best!
Tod
Jim Lubin wrote:
It came down to Ohio's 20 Electoral
votes deciding because they had already called Arizona's 10 votes (where
Bush got 55%, Kerry got 44%) and Arkansas's 6 votes (Bush 54%, Kerry 45%)
for Bush.
If they just make the poll close at the same time across
the country, 6pm in Hawaii/11pm in the East, then all the votes would be
counted at the same time and it wouldn't look like 1 state decided for
the rest.
At 12:43 PM 11/7/2004, QuadPirate wrote:
I hear you Tod,
I live in Ark and I felt the same way.
Mark

Re: [QUAD-L] election

[QuadPirate]

It just doesn't seem that complicated.
Why shouldn't everyone pay the same, that seems like the way it should be any ways.
 
Mark 
 
---Original Message---
 

From: Jim Lubin
Date: Sunday, November 07, 2004 14:34:39
To: QuadPirate; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [QUAD-L] election
 Something we agree on, a flat tax. I say around a 35% flat tax for everyone and exempt the first $100,000. That sound fair to me. Only deductions are for charitable contributions to encourage giving. There can even be an option to pay more to the government. During the campaigning I saw several Hollywood people saying they didn't need a tax break. Fine if they want to pay more than 35% of their income to the government then they can. At 11:19 AM 11/7/2004, QuadPirate wrote:
This tax subject and over hauling it should be easier than they say, let's just have a flat tax for everyonebut then his rich voters would come unglued. I'm so tired of these rich people getting all the breaks and have everything they'll ever need and more but they think they should pay less than people that have nothing and we continue to let this happen because they are the people paying for these campaigns and the tax cut is their payoff.
 







  IncrediMail - Email has finally evolved - Click Here

Re: [QUAD-L] election

[Jim Lubin]

It came down to Ohio's 20 Electoral votes deciding because
they had already called Arizona's 10 votes (where Bush got 55%, Kerry got
44%) and Arkansas's 6 votes (Bush 54%, Kerry 45%) for Bush. 
If they just make the poll close at the same time across the country, 6pm
in Hawaii/11pm in the East, then all the votes would be counted at the
same time and it wouldn't look like 1 state decided for the
rest.
At 12:43 PM 11/7/2004, QuadPirate wrote:
I hear you Tod, I live in Ark
and I felt the same way.
 
Mark 
 
---Original Message---
 
From: Tod E.
Santee
Date: Sunday, November 07, 2004 14:25:30
To: QuadPirate
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED];
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [QUAD-L] election
 
Mark, 
I agree... Bush did not win by 3 million votes in the US, he won by
130,000 votes (less than my city population) in Ohio. 
I'm tired of my vote not counting... It really doesn't if I live in
Arizona and keep hearing "Ohio will decide this
election," or Florida, or Pennsylvania, or New Hampshire, or
Iowa.  Why shouldn't my vote really help
"decide" an election?  Why did 537 FL votes
decide it in 2000 when the "error" rate will always be much
higher than 537 votes out of over 103,000,000 cast?  In fact, it's
higher than the usual / expected state error rate. 
  
  
QuadPirate wrote: 

Tod it should stay out but there's no doubt who went to polls for Bush in
the mid west at least.The war wasn't a big issue because neither one was
going to just pull out we're building permanentmilitary bases there right
now.I don't like the fact that they said moral values won this election
like if you're not a christian you don't have values that's a bunch of
crap I have more values than a lot of people I know that go to church.
This tax subject and over hauling it should be easier than they say,
let's just have a flat tax for everyonebut then his rich voters would
come unglued. I'm so tired of these rich people getting all the breaks
and have everything they'll ever need and more but they think they should
pay less than people that have nothing and we continue to let this happen
because they are the people paying for these campaigns and the tax cut is
their payoff. You know what is bugging me is the electoral votes because
I was watching some news program and they said Bush won Ohio only by
around 130,000 votes even though the popular vote he won by was 3 million
and some change so Bush could've won the popular vote by almost 3 million
and still lost the election there's something wrong about that.So this
election really would've been a mess if that would've happened. 
Mark  
-------Original Message---
  
From: Tod E.
Santee
Date: Saturday, November 06, 2004 18:56:06
To: Jim Lubin
Cc: Quad List
Subject: Re: [QUAD-L] election
 Jim,  
First, this "church crap" should stay out of ANY official
campaign material and debates... And I'm an Evang. Christian!  

Evangelical Christians alone? I
doubt it. How about the military and the people making more than
$200,000/yr that Kerry promised to tax more to pay for, among other
things, abortions for anyone woman who wants one. He said it in the
second debate. The defining marriage amendments were only on ballots in
11 states, including Oregon who voted for the marriage amendment and also
for Kerry. See, I don't push my Christian agenda on anyone here or
anywhere else... and neither should any candidate, campaign, or elected
official.  I can't tell a gay/lesbian they CAN'T get married because
MY religion is against it... Just like I can't tell women they have
to keep their heads covered during prayer because the Bible says
so.  

As for Nader... He shot himself in the foot when, even as his own party
wouldn't support him... in fact begged him NOT to run, he arrogantly went
on with it (as I believe he should have IF he really
believed he could make a difference) as if he was a real candidate. 
I used to respect him... support him.  But this time, he knew he
didn't count.  Even with the Republican support for him and the Dems
pushing against him (all that proving HIS point) he resulted in a
less-than-zero vote percent.  Pathetic!  
As far as who was voted for and against in '92, Perot's voters in '92
were voting both FOR Perot and AGAINST both Bush and Clinton. 

So, if you want to be fair, Perot's "Against the Others" votes
should either be split equally (unless better data is available... I'm
not searching) or included fully in both "Against"
counts.  
62.3% Against G.H.W.Bush, and  
56.7% Against Clinton  
(If ALL Perot voters were voting Against Clinton/Bush)  
Clinton being seen as the least of the evils.  
If split to assume only half were truly voting against the major parties
and the rest really liked Perot, then it's  
57.8% Against G.H.W.Bush 
42.2% Again

Re: [QUAD-L] election

[QuadPirate]

I hear you Tod, I live in Ark and I felt the same way.
 
Mark 
 
---Original Message---
 

From: Tod E. Santee
Date: Sunday, November 07, 2004 14:25:30
To: QuadPirate
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [QUAD-L] election
 Mark, 
I agree... Bush did not win by 3 million votes in the US, he won by 130,000 votes (less than my city population) in Ohio. 
I'm tired of my vote not counting... It really doesn't if I live in Arizona and keep hearing "Ohio will decide this election," or Florida, or Pennsylvania, or New Hampshire, or Iowa.  Why shouldn't my vote really help "decide" an election?  Why did 537 FL votes decide it in 2000 when the "error" rate will always be much higher than 537 votes out of over 103,000,000 cast?  In fact, it's higher than the usual / expected state error rate.     
QuadPirate wrote: 







Tod it should stay out but there's no doubt who went to polls for Bush in the mid west at least.The war wasn't a big issue because neither one was going to just pull out we're building permanentmilitary bases there right now.I don't like the fact that they said moral values won this election like if you're not a christian you don't have values that's a bunch of crap I have more values than a lot of people I know that go to church. This tax subject and over hauling it should be easier than they say, let's just have a flat tax for everyonebut then his rich voters would come unglued. I'm so tired of these rich people getting all the breaks and have everything they'll ever need and more but they think they should pay less than people that have nothing and we continue to let this happen because they are the people paying for these campaigns and the tax cut is their payoff. You know what is bugging me is the electoral votes because I was watching some news program and they said Bush won Ohio only by around 130,000 votes even though the popular vote he won by was 3 million and some change so Bush could've won the popular vote by almost 3 million and still lost the election there's something wrong about that.So this election really would've been a mess if that would've happened.  Mark  
---Original Message-------  

From: Tod E. Santee
Date: Saturday, November 06, 2004 18:56:06
To: Jim Lubin
Cc: Quad List
Subject: Re: [QUAD-L] election Jim,  
First, this "church crap" should stay out of ANY official campaign material and debates... And I'm an Evang. Christian!  
Evangelical Christians alone? I doubt it. How about the military and the people making more than $200,000/yr that Kerry promised to tax more to pay for, among other things, abortions for anyone woman who wants one. He said it in the second debate. The defining marriage amendments were only on ballots in 11 states, including Oregon who voted for the marriage amendment and also for Kerry. See, I don't push my Christian agenda on anyone here or anywhere else... and neither should any candidate, campaign, or elected official.  I can't tell a gay/lesbian they CAN'T get married because MY religion is against it... Just like I can't tell women they have to keep their heads covered during prayer because the Bible says so.  
As for Nader... He shot himself in the foot when, even as his own party wouldn't support him... in fact begged him NOT to run, he arrogantly went on with it (as I believe he should have IF he really believed he could make a difference) as if he was a real candidate.  I used to respect him... support him.  But this time, he knew he didn't count.  Even with the Republican support for him and the Dems pushing against him (all that proving HIS point) he resulted in a less-than-zero vote percent.  Pathetic!  
As far as who was voted for and against in '92, Perot's voters in '92 were voting both FOR Perot and AGAINST both Bush and Clinton.  
So, if you want to be fair, Perot's "Against the Others" votes should either be split equally (unless better data is available... I'm not searching) or included fully in both "Against" counts.  
62.3% Against G.H.W.Bush, and  56.7% Against Clinton  (If ALL Perot voters were voting Against Clinton/Bush)  Clinton being seen as the least of the evils.  
If split to assume only half were truly voting against the major parties and the rest really liked Perot, then it's  57.8% Against G.H.W.Bush 42.2% Against Clintion (Still, Clinton is the least of the evils with Perot having the support of 9.5% of voters.) 
Best regards,  Tod    
Jim Lubin wrote:  
Tod, 
So election 2004, 51% voted for the person who won, 49% voted against. In 1992, 43.3% voted for the person who won, 56.7% voted against.   
Nader might have had more votes in 2004 if the Democratic party didn't work so hard to suppress voter choice by keeping Nader 

Re: [QUAD-L] election

[Tod E. Santee]

Mark,
I agree... Bush did not win by 3 million votes in the US, he won by
130,000 votes (less than my city population) in Ohio.
I'm tired of my vote not counting... It really doesn't if I live in
Arizona and keep hearing "Ohio will decide this election,"
or Florida, or Pennsylvania, or New Hampshire, or Iowa.  Why shouldn't
my vote really help "decide" an election?  Why did 537
FL votes decide it in 2000 when the "error" rate will always be much higher
than 537 votes out of over 103,000,000 cast?  In fact, it's higher
than the usual / expected state error rate.
 
 
QuadPirate wrote:






Tod
it should stay out but there's no doubt who went to polls for Bush in the
mid west at least.The war wasn't a big issue because neither one was going
to just pull out we're building permanentmilitary bases there right now.I
don't like the fact that they said moral values won this election like
if you're not a christian you don't have values that's a bunch of crap
I have more values than a lot of people I know that go to church. This
tax subject and over hauling it should be easier than they say, let's just
have a flat tax for everyonebut then his rich voters would come unglued.
I'm so tired of these rich people getting all the breaks and have everything
they'll ever need and more but they think they should pay less than people
that have nothing and we continue to let this happen because they are the
people paying for these campaigns and the tax cut is their payoff. You
know what is bugging me is the electoral votes because I was watching some
news program and they said Bush won Ohio only by around 130,000 votes
even though the popular vote he won by was 3 million and some change so
Bush could've won the popular vote by almost 3 million and still lost the
election there's something wrong about that.So this election really would've
been a mess if that would've happened.  Mark 
---Original Message---
 

From: Tod
E. Santee

Date: Saturday, November
06, 2004 18:56:06

To: Jim
Lubin

Cc: Quad
List

Subject: Re: [QUAD-L] election

 Jim, 
First, this "church crap" should stay out of ANY official campaign material
and debates... And I'm an Evang. Christian! 
Evangelical Christians alone? I doubt
it. How about the military and the people making more than $200,000/yr
that Kerry promised to tax more to pay for, among other things, abortions
for anyone woman who wants one. He said it in the second debate. The defining
marriage amendments were only on ballots in 11 states, including Oregon
who voted for the marriage amendment and also for Kerry.
See, I don't push my Christian agenda on anyone here or anywhere else...
and neither should any candidate, campaign, or elected official. 
I can't tell a gay/lesbian they CAN'T get married because MY religion is
against it... Just like I can't tell women they have to keep
their heads covered during prayer because the Bible says so. 
As for Nader... He shot himself in the foot when, even as his own party
wouldn't support him... in fact begged him NOT to run, he arrogantly went
on with it (as I believe he should have IF he really believed
he could make a difference) as if he was a real candidate.  I used
to respect him... support him.  But this time, he knew he didn't count. 
Even with the Republican support for him and the Dems pushing against him
(all that proving HIS point) he resulted in a less-than-zero vote
percent.  Pathetic! 
As far as who was voted for and against in '92, Perot's voters in '92
were voting both FOR Perot and AGAINST both Bush and Clinton. 
So, if you want to be fair, Perot's "Against the Others" votes should
either be split equally (unless better data is available... I'm not searching)
or included fully in both "Against" counts. 
62.3% Against G.H.W.Bush, and 
56.7% Against Clinton 
(If ALL Perot voters were voting Against Clinton/Bush) 
Clinton being seen as the least of the evils. 
If split to assume only half were truly voting against the major parties
and the rest really liked Perot, then it's 
57.8% Against G.H.W.Bush
42.2% Against Clintion
(Still, Clinton is the least of the evils with Perot
having the support of 9.5% of voters.)
Best regards, 
Tod 
 
Jim Lubin wrote: 
Tod,
So election 2004, 51% voted for the person who won, 49%
voted against.
In 1992, 43.3% voted for the person who won, 56.7% voted
against.  
Nader might have had more votes in
2004 if the Democratic party didn't work so hard to suppress voter choice
by keeping Nader off the ballots in many states. If they had a candidate
that was actually worthy to be president what would they have to fear?
People would have been motivated to come out and vote for Kerry, as they
clearly did for Bush. 























 
IncrediMail - Email has finally evolved - Click
Here



<>

Re: [QUAD-L] election

[Jim Lubin]

Something we agree on, a flat tax. I say around a 35% flat
tax for everyone and exempt the first $100,000. That sound fair to me.
Only deductions are for charitable contributions to encourage giving.
There can even be an option to pay more to the government. During the
campaigning I saw several Hollywood people saying they didn't need a tax
break. Fine if they want to pay more than 35% of their income to the
government then they can. 
At 11:19 AM 11/7/2004, QuadPirate wrote:
This tax subject and over
hauling it should be easier than they say, let's just have a flat tax for
everyone
but then his rich voters would come unglued. I'm so tired of these rich
people getting all the breaks and have everything they'll ever need and
more but they think they should pay less than people that have nothing
and we continue to let this happen because they are the people paying for
these campaigns and the tax cut is their
payoff.

Re: [QUAD-L] election

[QuadPirate]

Tod it should stay out but there's no doubt who went to polls for Bush in the mid west at least.
The war wasn't a big issue because neither one was going to just pull out we're building permanent
military bases there right now.
I don't like the fact that they said moral values won this election like if you're not a christian you don't have values that's a bunch of crap I have more values than a lot of people I know that go to church.
 
This tax subject and over hauling it should be easier than they say, let's just have a flat tax for everyone
but then his rich voters would come unglued. I'm so tired of these rich people getting all the breaks and have everything they'll ever need and more but they think they should pay less than people that have nothing and we continue to let this happen because they are the people paying for these campaigns and the tax cut is their payoff.
 
You know what is bugging me is the electoral votes because I was watching some news program 
and they said Bush won Ohio only by around 130,000 votes even though the popular vote he won by was 3 million and some change so Bush could've won the popular vote by almost 3 million and still lost the election there's something wrong about that.
So this election really would've been a mess if that would've happened. 
 
Mark
 
---Original Message---
 

From: Tod E. Santee
Date: Saturday, November 06, 2004 18:56:06
To: Jim Lubin
Cc: Quad List
Subject: Re: [QUAD-L] election
 Jim, 
First, this "church crap" should stay out of ANY official campaign material and debates... And I'm an Evang. Christian! 
Evangelical Christians alone? I doubt it. How about the military and the people making more than $200,000/yr that Kerry promised to tax more to pay for, among other things, abortions for anyone woman who wants one. He said it in the second debate. The defining marriage amendments were only on ballots in 11 states, including Oregon who voted for the marriage amendment and also for Kerry. See, I don't push my Christian agenda on anyone here or anywhere else... and neither should any candidate, campaign, or elected official.  I can't tell a gay/lesbian they CAN'T get married because MY religion is against it... Just like I can't tell women they have to keep their heads covered during prayer because the Bible says so. 
As for Nader... He shot himself in the foot when, even as his own party wouldn't support him... in fact begged him NOT to run, he arrogantly went on with it (as I believe he should have IF he really believed he could make a difference) as if he was a real candidate.  I used to respect him... support him.  But this time, he knew he didn't count.  Even with the Republican support for him and the Dems pushing against him (all that proving HIS point) he resulted in a less-than-zero vote percent.  Pathetic! 
As far as who was voted for and against in '92, Perot's voters in '92 were voting both FOR Perot and AGAINST both Bush and Clinton. 
So, if you want to be fair, Perot's "Against the Others" votes should either be split equally (unless better data is available... I'm not searching) or included fully in both "Against" counts. 
62.3% Against G.H.W.Bush, and 56.7% Against Clinton (If ALL Perot voters were voting Against Clinton/Bush) Clinton being seen as the least of the evils. 
If split to assume only half were truly voting against the major parties and the rest really liked Perot, then it's 57.8% Against G.H.W.Bush 42.2% Against Clintion (Still, Clinton is the least of the evils with Perot having the support of 9.5% of voters.) 
Best regards, Tod   
Jim Lubin wrote: 
Tod, 
So election 2004, 51% voted for the person who won, 49% voted against. In 1992, 43.3% voted for the person who won, 56.7% voted against.  
Nader might have had more votes in 2004 if the Democratic party didn't work so hard to suppress voter choice by keeping Nader off the ballots in many states. If they had a candidate that was actually worthy to be president what would they have to fear? People would have been motivated to come out and vote for Kerry, as they clearly did for Bush. 
 







  IncrediMail - Email has finally evolved - Click Here

Re: [QUAD-L] election

[Stacy Harim]

I personally like the fact that he wanted to tax the people that made more 
than 200K a year.  Those were the people that got the breaks and didn't 
need them. Who needed them were people making a whole lot less.  If he gave 
the breaks to the middle class, in my opinion, would have helped society.  
The people with 200k plus already have money to spend.
Stacy
 
"People who hate you do not win unless you hate them. Then you destroy 
yourself"

  - Original Message - 
  From: Tod E. 
  Santee 
  To: Jim Lubin 
  Cc: Quad List 
  Sent: Saturday, November 06, 2004 7:56 
  PM
  Subject: Re: [QUAD-L] election
  Jim, 
  First, this "church crap" should stay out of ANY official campaign material 
  and debates... And I'm an Evang. Christian! 
  Evangelical Christians alone? I doubt 
it. How about the military and the people making more than $200,000/yr that 
Kerry promised to tax more to pay for, among other things, abortions for 
anyone woman who wants one. He said it in the second debate. The defining 
marriage amendments were only on ballots in 11 states, including Oregon who 
voted for the marriage amendment and also for Kerry.See, I 
  don't push my Christian agenda on anyone here or anywhere else... and neither 
  should any candidate, campaign, or elected official.  I can't tell a 
  gay/lesbian they CAN'T get married because MY religion is against it... Just 
  like I can't tell women they have to keep their heads covered 
  during prayer because the Bible says so. 
  As for Nader... He shot himself in the foot when, even as his own party 
  wouldn't support him... in fact begged him NOT to run, he arrogantly went on 
  with it (as I believe he should have IF he really believed he 
  could make a difference) as if he was a real candidate.  I used to 
  respect him... support him.  But this time, he knew he didn't 
  count.  Even with the Republican support for him and the Dems pushing 
  against him (all that proving HIS point) he resulted in a 
  less-than-zero vote percent.  Pathetic! 
  As far as who was voted for and against in '92, Perot's voters in '92 were 
  voting both FOR Perot and AGAINST both Bush and Clinton. 
  So, if you want to be fair, Perot's "Against the Others" votes should 
  either be split equally (unless better data is available... I'm not searching) 
  or included fully in both "Against" counts. 
  62.3% Against G.H.W.Bush, and 56.7% Against Clinton (If ALL Perot 
  voters were voting Against Clinton/Bush) Clinton being seen as the least 
  of the evils. 
  If split to assume only half were truly voting against the major parties 
  and the rest really liked Perot, then it's 57.8% Against 
  G.H.W.Bush 42.2% Against Clintion (Still, Clinton is the least of the evils with Perot having the 
  support of 9.5% of voters.) 
  Best regards, Tod   
  Jim Lubin wrote: 
  Tod, 
So election 2004, 51% voted for the person who won, 49% 
voted against. In 1992, 43.3% voted for the person 
who won, 56.7% voted against. 
  Nader might have had more votes in 
2004 if the Democratic party didn't work so hard to suppress voter choice by 
keeping Nader off the ballots in many states. If they had a candidate that 
was actually worthy to be president what would they have to fear? People 
would have been motivated to come out and vote for Kerry, as they clearly 
did for Bush.

Re: [QUAD-L] election

[Tod E. Santee]

Jim,
First, this "church crap" should stay out of ANY official campaign material
and debates... And I'm an Evang. Christian!
Evangelical Christians alone? I doubt
it. How about the military and the people making more than $200,000/yr
that Kerry promised to tax more to pay for, among other things, abortions
for anyone woman who wants one. He said it in the second debate. The defining
marriage amendments were only on ballots in 11 states, including Oregon
who voted for the marriage amendment and also for Kerry.
See, I don't push my Christian agenda on anyone here or anywhere else...
and neither should any candidate, campaign, or elected official. 
I can't tell a gay/lesbian they CAN'T get married because MY religion is
against it... Just like I can't tell women they have to keep
their heads covered during prayer because the Bible says so.
As for Nader... He shot himself in the foot when, even as his own party
wouldn't support him... in fact begged him NOT to run, he arrogantly went
on with it (as I believe he should have IF he really believed
he could make a difference) as if he was a real candidate.  I used
to respect him... support him.  But this time, he knew he didn't count. 
Even with the Republican support for him and the Dems pushing against him
(all that proving HIS point) he resulted in a less-than-zero vote
percent.  Pathetic!
As far as who was voted for and against in '92, Perot's voters in '92
were voting both FOR Perot and AGAINST both Bush and Clinton.
So, if you want to be fair, Perot's "Against the Others" votes should
either be split equally (unless better data is available... I'm not searching)
or included fully in both "Against" counts.
62.3% Against G.H.W.Bush, and
56.7% Against Clinton
(If ALL Perot voters were voting Against Clinton/Bush)
Clinton being seen as the least of the evils.
If split to assume only half were truly voting against the major parties
and the rest really liked Perot, then it's
57.8% Against G.H.W.Bush
42.2% Against Clintion
(Still, Clinton is the least of the evils with Perot
having the support of 9.5% of voters.)
Best regards,
Tod
 
Jim Lubin wrote:
Tod,
So election 2004, 51% voted for the person who won, 49%
voted against.
In 1992, 43.3% voted for the person who won, 56.7% voted
against.

Nader might have had more votes in
2004 if the Democratic party didn't work so hard to suppress voter choice
by keeping Nader off the ballots in many states. If they had a candidate
that was actually worthy to be president what would they have to fear?
People would have been motivated to come out and vote for Kerry, as they
clearly did for Bush.

Re: [QUAD-L] election

[Stacy Harim]

I would love nothing more than a man or woman that is respectable with 
valuable ideas and goals for this country to run for president.  To have 
someone that doesn't think on one side would be the best thing for this country. 
In my own opinion, but I realize that will never happen because the majority of 
the country is either republican or democrat. It's sad that these guys that are 
basically a joke are coming out and running.  Again in my own 
opinion.
Stacy
 
"People who hate you do not win unless you hate them. Then you destroy 
yourself"

  - Original Message - 
  From: Jim Lubin 
  To: Tod E. Santee 
  Cc: Quad List 
  Sent: Saturday, November 06, 2004 3:43 
  PM
  Subject: Re: [QUAD-L] election
  Tod,So election 2004, 51% voted for the 
  person who won, 49% voted against.In 1992, 43.3% voted for the person who 
  won, 56.7% voted against.Going by what you suggest the ballot could 
  have said "Bush or Not Bush". So no one actually voted for 
  Kerry, 56 million people voted only because they didn't 
  like Bush and not because they wanted Kerry? Doesn't that just prove the 
  point. Only 43.3%, nearly 45 million, actually wanted Clinton for president. 
  51%, nearly 60 million people, wanted G.W Bush for president. Nader 
  might have had more votes in 2004 if the Democratic party didn't work so hard 
  to suppress voter choice by keeping Nader off the ballots in many states. If 
  they had a candidate that was actually worthy to be president what would they 
  have to fear? People would have been motivated to come out and vote for Kerry, 
  as they clearly did for Bush. Not only did more people vote for Bush, 
  the senate minority leader was dumped. In both 2002 & 2004 the Republicans 
  gained seats in the House and Senate. A clear indication that a majority of 
  the country is voting against values and ideas of the Democratic party. 
  Evangelical Christians alone? I doubt it. How about the military and 
  the people making more than $200,000/yr that Kerry promised to tax more to pay 
  for, among other things, abortions for anyone woman who wants one. He said it 
  in the second debate. The defining marriage amendments were only on ballots in 
  11 states, including Oregon who voted for the marriage amendment and also for 
  Kerry. At 08:32 AM 11/6/2004, Tod E. Santee wrote:
  Jim, I might suggest that 
the 19.0% for Perot was a vote against both Clinton and G.H.W.Bush -- Not 
just Clinton.  That might be considered a time there was a "valid" 3rd 
Party Candidate.  The Perot voters were definitely voting against BOTH 
parties.  There's no way you can honestly be convinced nearly 20 
million people voted Perot only because they didn't like 
Clinton. 43.3% Bill Clinton 37.7% G.H.W.Bush 19.0% Ross 
Perot This time, < 1% for Nader?  Hardly a vote like 
'92.  This time it was a vote for one or against the other. Jim 
Lubin wrote: 
Oh Tod, with a few minutes of 
  research, I am happy to report that dubious honor goes to Bill Clinton in 
  1992. 1992    William J. Clinton - 
  44,909,889 George H. Bush - 39,104,545 H. Ross Perot - 19,742,267 
  Votes against Clinton 58,846,812 http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0781450.html 
  2004 (Updated 11/5/2004 7:10 AM) George W Bush - 59,645,158 
  (and still counting) John F Kerry - 56,149,771 http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/vote2004/president.htm 
  More people voted against Clinton than voted For Kerry! At 
  07:49 PM 11/5/2004, Tod E. Santee wrote: 
  On the flip side, given the 
turnout, Bush had more people vote against him than any 
other candidate in the history of the US.  <-- It's all in how 
you look at it. And, given that huge turnout resulted in a 
51-49% divide, one would be hard pressed to find anyone who could 
honestly call that a "Mandate" for the Christian or traditional 
or moral values Mr. Bush holds dear.  Everyone believe their values 
are moral.  That's why they value them. (Political Capital 
my A$$... He'll spend something... that's fer shur) Best! 
Tod (Electors cast their votes in Dec. -- Some Rep. electors 
are now undecided and pissed at Bush!) Jim Lubin wrote: 
>Bush won the election by the largest number of >votes in 
the history of the 
country.

Re: [QUAD-L] election

[Jim Lubin]

Tod,
So election 2004, 51% voted for the person who won, 49% voted
against.
In 1992, 43.3% voted for the person who won, 56.7% voted
against.
Going by what you suggest the ballot could have said "Bush or Not
Bush". So no one actually voted for Kerry, 56 million
people voted only because they didn't like Bush and not
because they wanted Kerry? Doesn't that just prove the point. Only 43.3%,
nearly 45 million, actually wanted Clinton for president. 51%, nearly 60
million people, wanted G.W Bush for president. 
Nader might have had more votes in 2004 if the Democratic party didn't
work so hard to suppress voter choice by keeping Nader off the ballots in
many states. If they had a candidate that was actually worthy to be
president what would they have to fear? People would have been motivated
to come out and vote for Kerry, as they clearly did for Bush. 
Not only did more people vote for Bush, the senate minority leader was
dumped. In both 2002 & 2004 the Republicans gained seats in the House
and Senate. A clear indication that a majority of the country is voting
against values and ideas of the Democratic party. 
Evangelical Christians alone? I doubt it. How about the military and the
people making more than $200,000/yr that Kerry promised to tax more to
pay for, among other things, abortions for anyone woman who wants one. He
said it in the second debate. The defining marriage amendments were only
on ballots in 11 states, including Oregon who voted for the marriage
amendment and also for Kerry. 

At 08:32 AM 11/6/2004, Tod E. Santee wrote:
Jim, 
I might suggest that the 19.0% for Perot was a vote against both Clinton
and G.H.W.Bush -- Not just Clinton.  That might be considered a time
there was a "valid" 3rd Party Candidate.  The Perot voters
were definitely voting against BOTH parties.  There's no way you can
honestly be convinced nearly 20 million people voted Perot
only because they didn't like Clinton. 
43.3% Bill Clinton 
37.7% G.H.W.Bush 
19.0% Ross Perot 
This time, < 1% for Nader?  Hardly a vote like '92.  This
time it was a vote for one or against the other. 
Jim Lubin wrote: 
Oh Tod, with a few minutes of
research, I am happy to report that dubious honor goes to Bill Clinton in
1992. 
1992    
William J. Clinton - 44,909,889 
George H. Bush - 39,104,545 
H. Ross Perot - 19,742,267 
Votes against Clinton 58,846,812 
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0781450.html

2004 (Updated 11/5/2004 7:10 AM) 
George W Bush - 59,645,158 (and still counting) 
John F Kerry - 56,149,771 
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/vote2004/president.htm 
More people voted against Clinton than voted For Kerry! 
At 07:49 PM 11/5/2004, Tod E. Santee wrote: 
On the flip side, given the turnout, Bush had more people vote against him than any other candidate in the history of the US.  <-- It's all in how you look at it. 
And, given that huge turnout resulted in a 51-49% divide, one would be hard pressed to find anyone who could honestly call that a "Mandate" for the Christian or traditional or moral values Mr. Bush holds dear.  Everyone believe their values are moral.  That's why they value them. 
(Political Capital my A$$... He'll spend something... that's fer shur) 
Best! 
Tod 
(Electors cast their votes in Dec. -- Some Rep. electors are now undecided and pissed at Bush!) 
Jim Lubin wrote: 
>Bush won the election by the largest number of 
>votes in the history of the country.

Re: [QUAD-L] election

[Jim Lubin]

At 09:42 PM 11/5/2004, Stacy Harim wrote:
I'm sorry.  I guess ABC had
their facts wrong then because they mentioned in a few times that Gore
won the popular vote.
Gore did win the overall popular vote in 2000
George W. Bush - 50,456,002 
Albert A. Gore - 50,999,897 
Ralph Nader - 2,882,955 
Bush won the popular vote in Florida by 537 votes, which gave him enough
Electoral votes to get elected. 

Re: [QUAD-L] election

[Tod E. Santee]

Jim,
I might suggest that the 19.0% for Perot was a vote against both Clinton
and G.H.W.Bush -- Not just Clinton.  That might be considered a time
there was a "valid" 3rd Party Candidate.  The Perot voters were definitely
voting against BOTH parties.  There's no way you can honestly be convinced
nearly 20 million people voted Perot only because they didn't
like Clinton.
43.3% Bill Clinton
37.7% G.H.W.Bush
19.0% Ross Perot
This time, < 1% for Nader?  Hardly a vote like '92.  This
time it was a vote for one or against the other.
Jim Lubin wrote:
Oh Tod, with a few minutes of research,
I am happy to report that dubious honor goes to Bill Clinton in 1992.
1992 
William J. Clinton - 44,909,889
George H. Bush - 39,104,545
H. Ross Perot - 19,742,267
Votes against Clinton 58,846,812
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0781450.html
2004 (Updated 11/5/2004 7:10 AM)
George W Bush - 59,645,158 (and still counting)
John F Kerry - 56,149,771
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/vote2004/president.htm
More people voted against Clinton than voted For Kerry!
At 07:49 PM 11/5/2004, Tod E. Santee wrote:
On the flip side,
given the turnout, Bush had more people vote against him
than any other candidate in the history of the US.  <-- It's all
in how you look at it.
And, given that huge turnout resulted in a 51-49% divide,
one would be hard pressed to find anyone who could honestly call
that a "Mandate" for the Christian or traditional or moral values Mr. Bush
holds dear.  Everyone believe their values are moral.  That's
why they value them.
(Political Capital my A$$... He'll spend something...
that's fer shur)
Best!
Tod
(Electors cast their votes in Dec. -- Some Rep. electors
are now undecided and pissed at Bush!)
Jim Lubin wrote:
>Bush won the election by the largest number of
>votes in the history of the country.

Re: [QUAD-L] election

[THouston]

Gore won the 
overall popular vote for the nation but received more electoral 
votes.
THouston

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Stacy Harim 
  To: Quad List ; Tod E. 
  Santee ; Jim 
  Lubin 
  Sent: Friday, November 05, 2004 11:42 
  PM
  Subject: Re: [QUAD-L] election
  
  
  I'm sorry.  I guess ABC had their facts wrong then because they 
  mentioned in a few times that Gore won the popular vote.
  Stacy
   
  "People who hate you do not win unless you hate them. Then you destroy 
  yourself"
  
- Original Message - 
From: Jim Lubin 
To: Stacy Harim ; Quad 
List ; Tod E. Santee 
Sent: Saturday, November 06, 2004 12:31 
AM
    Subject: Re: [QUAD-L] election
Stacy, The Supreme Court put an end to the 
recounts trying to find votes for Gore when Democrats were wanting to 
re-write the rules of what constituted a valid vote. Bush won Florida by 537 
votes, giving him enough electoral votes to win.http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/florida.ballots/stories/main.html 
At 08:11 PM 11/5/2004, Stacy Harim wrote:
Is that just this election or 
  the last one that he one as well? I know that Gore had more of the popular 
  vote in Florida but the Supreme Court gave it to Bush because he got the 
  electoral vote.  It's only a question not a 
  debate.

Re: [QUAD-L] election

[Stacy Harim]

I'm sorry.  I guess ABC had their facts wrong then because they 
mentioned in a few times that Gore won the popular vote.
Stacy
 
"People who hate you do not win unless you hate them. Then you destroy 
yourself"

  - Original Message - 
  From: Jim Lubin 
  To: Stacy Harim ; Quad 
  List ; Tod E. Santee 
  Sent: Saturday, November 06, 2004 12:31 
  AM
  Subject: Re: [QUAD-L] election
  Stacy, The Supreme Court put an end to the 
  recounts trying to find votes for Gore when Democrats were wanting to re-write 
  the rules of what constituted a valid vote. Bush won Florida by 537 votes, 
  giving him enough electoral votes to win.http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/florida.ballots/stories/main.html 
  At 08:11 PM 11/5/2004, Stacy Harim wrote:
  Is that just this election or the 
last one that he one as well? I know that Gore had more of the popular vote 
in Florida but the Supreme Court gave it to Bush because he got the 
electoral vote.  It's only a question not a 
debate.

Re: [QUAD-L] election

[Jim Lubin]

Highest turn out since 1968.
http://www.idea.int/voter_turnout/northamerica/usa.html
this election was 59%, might end up higher
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/turnout.htm
At 09:23 PM 11/5/2004, Stacy Harim wrote:
Wasn't this the biggest turn out
in history for voting?  I'm pretty sure I saw that one one the news.
I could be wrong but it was something like 60 or 61 percent and in the
past it was below 50%.  I am not sure exactly on the numbers, but I
am pretty confident in saying that this was the biggest turn out so yea,
ok Bush had more people vote for him than anyone else in
history.


Jim
Lubin  

[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bothell, WA, USA  
http://makoa.org/jim

disAbility Resources: http://www.makoa.org
Transverse Myelitis Association: http://www.myelitis.org/HowToHelp

Re: [QUAD-L] election

[Jim Lubin]

Stacy, The Supreme Court put an end to the recounts trying
to find votes for Gore when Democrats were wanting to re-write the rules
of what constituted a valid vote. Bush won Florida by 537 votes, giving
him enough electoral votes to win.
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/florida.ballots/stories/main.html


At 08:11 PM 11/5/2004, Stacy Harim wrote:
Is that just this election or the last one that he one as well? I know that Gore had more of the popular vote in Florida but the Supreme Court gave it to Bush because he got the electoral vote.  It's only a question not a debate.

Re: [QUAD-L] election

[Stacy Harim]

Wasn't this the biggest turn out in history for voting?  I'm pretty 
sure I saw that one one the news. I could be wrong but it was something like 60 
or 61 percent and in the past it was below 50%.  I am not sure exactly on 
the numbers, but I am pretty confident in saying that this was the biggest turn 
out so yea, ok Bush had more people vote for him than anyone else in 
history.
Stacy
 
"People who hate you do not win unless you hate them. Then you destroy 
yourself"

  - Original Message - 
  From: Jim Lubin 
  To: Tod E. Santee ; Quad 
  List 
  Sent: Saturday, November 06, 2004 12:10 
  AM
  Subject: Re: [QUAD-L] election
  Oh Tod, with a few minutes of research, I am happy 
  to report that dubious honor goes to Bill Clinton in 1992.1992 
     William J. Clinton - 44,909,889George 
  H. Bush - 39,104,545H. Ross Perot - 19,742,267Votes against Clinton 
  58,846,812http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0781450.html2004 
  (Updated 11/5/2004 7:10 AM)George W Bush - 59,645,158 (and still 
  counting)John F Kerry - 56,149,771http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/vote2004/president.htmMore 
  people voted against Clinton than voted For Kerry! At 07:49 PM 
  11/5/2004, Tod E. Santee wrote:
  On the flip side, given the 
turnout, Bush had more people vote against him than any other 
candidate in the history of the US.  <-- It's all in how you look at 
it. And, given that huge turnout resulted in a 51-49% divide, one 
would be hard pressed to find anyone who could honestly call that a 
"Mandate" for the Christian or traditional or moral values Mr. Bush holds 
dear.  Everyone believe their values are moral.  That's why they 
value them. (Political Capital my A$$... He'll spend something... 
that's fer shur) Best! Tod (Electors cast their votes in 
Dec. -- Some Rep. electors are now undecided and pissed at Bush!) 
Jim Lubin wrote: >Bush won the election by the largest number 
of >votes in the history of the country. 

Re: [QUAD-L] election

[Jim Lubin]

Oh Tod, with a few minutes of research, I am happy to report
that dubious honor goes to Bill Clinton in 1992.
1992    
William J. Clinton - 44,909,889
George H. Bush - 39,104,545
H. Ross Perot - 19,742,267
Votes against Clinton 58,846,812
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0781450.html
2004 (Updated 11/5/2004 7:10 AM)
George W Bush - 59,645,158 (and still counting)
John F Kerry - 56,149,771
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/vote2004/president.htm
More people voted against Clinton than voted For Kerry! 
At 07:49 PM 11/5/2004, Tod E. Santee wrote:
On the flip side, given the
turnout, Bush had more people vote against him than any
other candidate in the history of the US.  <-- It's all in how
you look at it. 
And, given that huge turnout resulted in a 51-49% divide, one would be
hard pressed to find anyone who could honestly call that a
"Mandate" for the Christian or traditional or moral values Mr.
Bush holds dear.  Everyone believe their values are moral. 
That's why they value them. 
(Political Capital my A$$... He'll spend something... that's fer shur)

Best! 
Tod 
(Electors cast their votes in Dec. -- Some Rep. electors are now
undecided and pissed at Bush!) 
Jim Lubin wrote: 
>Bush won the election by the largest number of 
>votes in the history of the country. 

Re: [QUAD-L] election

[Stacy Harim]

Is that just this election or the last one that he one as well? I know that 
Gore had more of the popular vote in Florida but the Supreme Court gave it to 
Bush because he got the electoral vote.  It's only a question not a 
debate.
Stacy
 
"People who hate you do not win unless you hate them. Then you destroy 
yourself"

  - Original Message - 
  From: Tod E. 
  Santee 
  To: Quad List 
  Sent: Friday, November 05, 2004 10:49 
  PM
  Subject: [QUAD-L] election
  On the flip side, given the turnout, Bush had more people vote 
  against him than any other candidate in the history of the 
  US.  <-- It's all in how you look at it. 
  And, given that huge turnout resulted in a 51-49% divide, one would be hard 
  pressed to find anyone who could honestly call that a "Mandate" for the 
  Christian or traditional or moral values Mr. Bush holds dear.  Everyone 
  believe their values are moral.  That's why they value them. 
  (Political Capital my A$$... He'll spend something... that's fer shur) 
  Best! Tod 
  (Electors cast their votes in Dec. -- Some Rep. electors are now undecided 
  and pissed at Bush!) 
  Jim Lubin wrote: >Bush won the election by the largest number of 
  >votes in the history of the country. 

Re: [QUAD-L] election

[Stuntman]

Actually in one of his last speeches before the election, the President 
said he would support Civil Unions.
Adding equal protection to Civil Unions can be done by Legistlature, 
all it requires is a Bill.
However defining marriage federaly would require an Amendment.
Stuntman

> 
> George Bush proposed the Federal Marriage Amendment. If it had passed 
in 
> congress then it would have needed to passed by 3/4 of the states to 
be 
> enacted. It failed in the senate and died.
> 
> This past election, 11 states did what John Kerry supported and voted 
to 
> decide what constitutes the legal definition of marriage in their 
> individual states. The people in those states decided by voting. 
That's how 
> democracies work. So now Ohio has a more restrictive state 
constitution 
> than most other states.
> 
> At 03:10 PM 11/4/2004, Stacy Harim wrote:
> >That is what John Kerry was saying all the way through the election. 
> >George Bush was saying it's just wrong.
> >Stacy
> >
> >"People who hate you do not win unless you hate them. Then you 
destroy 
> >yourself"
> >- Original Message -
> >From: Jim Lubin
> 
> >I see nothing wrong with defining that a "marriage" is a union 
between one 
> >man and one woman. I do agree that the measure in Ohio went too far 
> >because it bans any "legal status for relationships of unmarried 
> >individuals that intends to approximate the design, qualities, 
> >significance or effect of marriage." But people thought it should be 
left 
> >to the individual states to decide and that's how the people in the 
state 
> >of Ohio voted.
> 
> 

-- 
It's not the fall that hurts.
Home page http://tnthompson0.tripod.com/homeincyberspace/
Graphics portfolio http://tnthompson1.tripod.com/index.htm
Domain space http://nw-in.com/index.html

Re: [QUAD-L] election

[QuadPirate]

I think you forgot this is the quad list not the Boyd list a place where quads can get info, vent and debate without personal attacks by fellow quads.
I believe it went like "haul your sorry ass out of it".
Self discipline should be practiced by all of us.
 
Mark 
 
---Original Message---
 

From: Boyd Jenkins
Date: Thursday, November 04, 2004 22:46:49
To: QuadPirate; Lori Michaelson; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [QUAD-L] election
 Sure have! That’s what we’re exercising when we happily invite someone who “hates this country,” to the first boat outOn 11/4/04 1:39 PM, "QuadPirate" --<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:<Snip> Have you guys ever heard of Freedom of speech? 
 







  IncrediMail - Email has finally evolved - Click Here

Re: [QUAD-L] election

[Boyd Jenkins]

Title: Re: [QUAD-L] election



Sure have! That’s what we’re exercising when we happily 
invite someone who “hates this country,” to the first boat out
On 11/4/04 1:39 PM, "QuadPirate" 
--
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

<Snip> Have you guys ever heard of Freedom of speech?

Re: [QUAD-L] election

[David K. Kelmer]

Hi Tony,
 
I STILL wouldn't want to leave AMERICA.  I would work within the system to change the laws and make it legal again.  That is the American way!
 
With Love,
CtrlAltDel aka DaveC4/5 Complete - 28 Years PostTexas, USA[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In a message dated 11/4/2004 2:39:54 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Have you guys ever heard of Freedom of speech?If you don't like our countries write of Freedom of speech maybe you should go elsewhere because there's nothing more American than speeking your mind without persecution.I think River is very upset because the country just slapped her in the face because of her lifestyle.I'm not saying it's right or wrong it's just different.If the country said the disabled were limited to only marry another disabled person you guys might see it different because we're outcast as much as anyone.I've seen people damn near run into walls fearing to actually come in contact with me.  I'm with you markwhat you said was REAL comp!
 assion n
 understanding - something the religious preach a lot of, but rarely practice!!I've thought about this...what if the make ORAL SEX illegal???  It has been in many states years ago...i wouldn't have a sex life, and i've probably had better results than the conventional hop-on, pound, hop-off approach.-tony 

Re: [QUAD-L] election

[Jim Lubin]

George Bush proposed the Federal Marriage Amendment. If it
had passed in congress then it would have needed to passed by 3/4 of the
states to be enacted. It failed in the senate and died. 
This past election, 11 states did what John Kerry supported and voted to
decide what constitutes the legal definition of marriage in their
individual states. The people in those states decided by voting. That's
how democracies work. So now Ohio has a more restrictive state
constitution than most other states.
At 03:10 PM 11/4/2004, Stacy Harim wrote:
That is what John Kerry was
saying all the way through the election. George Bush was saying it's just
wrong.
Stacy
 
"People who hate you do not win unless you hate them. Then you
destroy yourself"


- Original Message - 

From: Jim Lubin




I see nothing wrong with defining that a "marriage" is a union between one man and one woman. I do agree that the measure in Ohio went too far because it bans any "legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals that intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance or effect of marriage." But people thought it should be left to the individual states to decide and that's how the people in the state of Ohio voted. 

Re: [QUAD-L] election

[Stacy Harim]

That is what John Kerry was saying all the way through the election. George 
Bush was saying it's just wrong.
Stacy
 
"People who hate you do not win unless you hate them. Then you destroy 
yourself"

  - Original Message - 
  From: Jim Lubin 
  To: QuadPirate ; Lori 
  Michaelson ; [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  Sent: Thursday, November 04, 2004 3:45 
  PM
  Subject: Re: [QUAD-L] election
  At 11:39 AM 11/4/2004, QuadPirate wrote:
  I think River is very upset 
because the country just slapped her in the face because of her 
lifestyle.I'm not saying it's right or wrong it's just different.If 
the country said the disabled were limited to only marry another disabled 
person you guys might see it different because we're outcast as much as 
anyone.I've seen people damn near run into walls fearing to actually 
come in contact with me.I see nothing wrong with defining 
  that a "marriage" is a union between one man and one woman. I do agree that 
  the measure in Ohio went too far because it bans any "legal status for 
  relationships of unmarried individuals that intends to approximate the design, 
  qualities, significance or effect of marriage." But people thought it should 
  be left to the individual states to decide and that's how the people in the 
  state of Ohio voted. 

Re: [QUAD-L] election

[Stacy Harim]

Exactly and well said Mark.  It's not even so much of marriage that 
upsets me for the gays and Lesbians that are in our country but they should have 
some sort of protection and they don't. It's not that hard to give it to them 
and George Bush lets his religious views get in the way of politics.
Stacy
 
"People who hate you do not win unless you hate them. Then you destroy 
yourself"

  - Original Message - 
  From: QuadPirate 
  To: Lori Michaelson ; [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  Sent: Thursday, November 04, 2004 2:39 
  PM
  Subject: Re: [QUAD-L] election
  
  

  
Have you guys ever heard of Freedom of speech?
If you don't like our countries write of Freedom of speech 
maybe you should go elsewhere because there's nothing more American 
than speeking your mind without persecution.
I think River is very upset because the country just slapped her in 
the face because of her lifestyle.
I'm not saying it's right or wrong it's just different.
If the country said the disabled were limited to only marry another 
disabled person you guys might see it different because we're outcast as 
much as anyone.
I've seen people damn near run into walls fearing to actually come 
in contact with me.
 
 
Mark
 
---Original 
Message---
 

From: Lori 
Michaelson
Date: Thursday, 
November 04, 2004 12:34:40
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [QUAD-L] 
election
 At Wednesday 11/3/2004 09:00 PM, 
you wrote:
If you hate this country so 
  much, why don’t you haul your sorry ass out of it?Precisely!  We take too much for 
  granted!  Don't like our ways?  Go elsewhere!Lori 
   

  

  
  


  IncrediMail - Email has finally evolved - 
  Click 
  Here
<>

Re: [QUAD-L] election

[TonyPony1]

In a message dated 11/4/2004 2:39:54 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

Have you guys ever heard of Freedom of speech?
 If you don't like our countries write of Freedom of speech maybe you should go elsewhere because there's nothing more American than speeking your mind without persecution.
 I think River is very upset because the country just slapped her in the face because of her lifestyle.
 I'm not saying it's right or wrong it's just different.
 If the country said the disabled were limited to only marry another disabled person you guys might see it different because we're outcast as much as anyone.
 I've seen people damn near run into walls fearing to actually come in contact with me.
  




I'm with you markwhat you said was REAL compassion n understanding - something the religious preach a lot of, but rarely practice!!

I've thought about this...what if the make ORAL SEX illegal???  It has been in many states years ago...i wouldn't have a sex life, and i've probably had better results than the conventional hop-on, pound, hop-off approach.

-tony

Re: [QUAD-L] election

[Jim Lubin]

At 11:39 AM 11/4/2004, QuadPirate wrote:
I think River is very upset
because the country just slapped her in the face because of her
lifestyle.
I'm not saying it's right or wrong it's just different.
If the country said the disabled were limited to only marry another
disabled person you guys might see it different because we're outcast as
much as anyone.
I've seen people damn near run into walls fearing to actually come in
contact with me.
I see nothing wrong with defining that a "marriage" is a union
between one man and one woman. I do agree that the measure in Ohio went
too far because it bans any "legal status for relationships of
unmarried individuals that intends to approximate the design, qualities,
significance or effect of marriage." But people thought it should be
left to the individual states to decide and that's how the people in the
state of Ohio voted. 

Re: [QUAD-L] election

[QuadPirate]

Have you guys ever heard of Freedom of speech?
If you don't like our countries write of Freedom of speech maybe you should go elsewhere because there's nothing more American than speeking your mind without persecution.
I think River is very upset because the country just slapped her in the face because of her lifestyle.
I'm not saying it's right or wrong it's just different.
If the country said the disabled were limited to only marry another disabled person you guys might see it different because we're outcast as much as anyone.
I've seen people damn near run into walls fearing to actually come in contact with me.
 
 
Mark
 
---Original Message---
 

From: Lori Michaelson
Date: Thursday, November 04, 2004 12:34:40
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [QUAD-L] election
 At Wednesday 11/3/2004 09:00 PM, you wrote:
If you hate this country so much, why don’t you haul your sorry ass out of it?Precisely!  We take too much for granted!  Don't like our ways?  Go elsewhere!Lori
 







  IncrediMail - Email has finally evolved - Click Here

Re: [QUAD-L] election

[Lori Michaelson]

At Wednesday 11/3/2004 09:00 PM, you wrote:
If you hate this country so
much, why 
don’t you haul your sorry ass out of it?
Precisely!  We take too much for granted!  Don't like our
ways?  Go elsewhere!
Lori

Re: [QUAD-L] election

[Boyd Jenkins]

Title: Re: [QUAD-L] election



If you hate this country so much, why 
don’t you haul your sorry ass out of it?

Boyd
-
On 11/3/04 1:17 PM, "River Wolfe" 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> I hate this country right now. Regardless of what some of the JERKS on 
> this list may want to believe, the election was again stolen by the 
> BUSH EMPIRE.  Today, I  went for a CAT SCAN and it was all I could do 
> to even talk to the people there.  This is election is a PERSONAL 
> indictment against GLB people, as you may or may not know many so 
> called Christians voted solely because of their fear of ME AND MY 
> PARTNER.  Based on what they feel are their VALUES.  How could people 
> not give a crap about the WAR, Economy, social security, health care 
> and social justice, in favor of keeping my partner from receiving 
> rights to have access to me in the hospital, our house if I die, my 
> funeral, paid family medical leave if I get sick and so forth ?  How 
> can I not HATE so called Christian Americans?  I really think Jesus 
> was a cool guy and I believe he would NOT support the current war 
> criminal we call president.  Bush has started a culture war not unlike 
> those in most Islamic counties, ironic isn't it?

> REVOLUTION NOW.
>
>
> River

Re: [QUAD-L] election

[Stacy Harim]

Title: Re: [QUAD-L] election




Are these sarcastic comments possibly bringing out the true colors of you 
guys?  I have not made one remark about or to anyone personally for their 
feelings about this election.  Great that I am upset and wheels mark about 
I am special because I made a comment about being registered independent because 
he was separating democrats and republicans.
Stacy
 
"People who hate you do not win unless you hate them. Then you destroy 
yourself"

  - Original Message - 
  From: Boyd 
  Jenkins 
  To: Stacy Harim ; quad 
  ; River Wolfe 
  Sent: Wednesday, November 03, 2004 10:17 
  PM
  Subject: Re: [QUAD-L] election
  Great!-On 
  11/3/04 1:55 PM, "Stacy Harim" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
  wrote:
  < Snip> I am 
pretty upset about it 
myself

Re: [QUAD-L] election

[Boyd Jenkins]

Title: Re: [QUAD-L] election



Bon’ Voyage!
---
On 11/3/04 3:38 PM, "dave headman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

<Snip> i wish i could move to australia, they seem sane down there.

Re: [QUAD-L] election

[Boyd Jenkins]

Title: Re: [QUAD-L] election



Great!
-
On 11/3/04 1:55 PM, "Stacy Harim" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

< Snip> I am pretty upset about it myself

Re: [QUAD-L] election

[Stacy Harim]

That is what I said in my original email.  I'm relieved that democrats 
took more seats in the senate.
Stacy
 
"People who hate you do not win unless you hate them. Then you destroy 
yourself"

  - Original Message - 
  From: Jim Lubin 
  To: Stacy Harim 
  Sent: Wednesday, November 03, 2004 5:43 
  PM
  Subject: Re: [QUAD-L] election
  ah, we are talking about different things. I'm 
  talking about Congress you are talking about the state 
  legislatures.JimAt 02:28 PM 11/3/2004, you wrote:
  You are looking at the seats and 
not the states.  http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=223797Stacy "People 
who hate you do not win unless you hate them. Then you destroy 
yourself"

  - Original Message - 
  From: Jim Lubin 
  To: Stacy Harim ; quad 
  Sent: Wednesday, November 03, 2004 3:57 PM
  Subject: Re: [QUAD-L] election
  Bush won the election by the largest number of votes in the history of 
  the country. The Republicans gained a larger majority in both the House 
  (234) and the Senate (55).
  At 11:55 AM 11/3/2004, Stacy Harim wrote:
  
You are right.  The people that voted for Bush, especially in 
Ohio, voted on moral grounds and not on the economy.  I am pretty 
upset about it myself, but what can we do.  Bush has to face a lot 
of very angry democrats right now and needs to realize that he needs to 
do more.  The Senate however has many democrats in it and now will 
affect the bills that are getting signed. I don't see a lot of Bush's 
ideas getting through them.  People were saying that they don't 
think that Kerry would be able to take over in the middle of a war, but 
the people voted many democrats into office. I find some peace in 
that.

Re: [QUAD-L] election

[Stacy Harim]

I'm actually studying World History now and know that those wars started 
centuries ago.  You are telling me that you don't believe in taking care of 
our own wars in our own country before taking care of someone elses?  What 
about the people here that don't have power or homes and go hungry 
everyday.  Some of those people, yes, asked for it, but many have been 
dealt a bad hand. That is what I believe.  I am a Christian yes, but I also 
believe that we are all loved for who we are and not what the bible tells us to 
be.
Stacy
 
"People who hate you do not win unless you hate them. Then you destroy 
yourself"

  - Original Message - 
  From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  Sent: Wednesday, November 03, 2004 4:26 
  PM
  Subject: Re: [QUAD-L] election
  
  
  These words , sounds like 
  your greatest enemy is within yourself.  I wonder if anyone is a 
  Christian in your thinking.You might hate me . my friend, but I can truly 
  say that I love you , no matter what you think of me. If you will 
  study history , you will see that the Islamic war started many many centuries 
  ago.  This world is experiencing a spiritual warfare also.  A 
  warfare against that which is moral and right against the deception of lust 
  and greed.I pray that you will find true happiness and peace.  Not as 
  the world gives, but that of a loving God.  -- Jimmy , post 48 
  yrs.
   
  How > can I not HATE so 
  called Christian Americans?  I really think Jesus > was a cool guy 
  and I believe he would NOT support the current war > criminal we call 
  president.  Bush has started a culture war not unlike > those in 
  most Islamic counties, ironic isn't it?
   a message dated 11/3/2004 1:55:53 PM Central Standard Time, 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
  
From: River Wolfe 
To: quad 
Sent: Wednesday, November 03, 2004 2:17 
PM
Subject: [QUAD-L] election
> I hate this country 
right now. Regardless of what some of the JERKS on > this list may 
want to believe, the election was again stolen by the > BUSH 
EMPIRE.  Today, I  went for a CAT SCAN and it was all I could do 
> to even talk to the people there.  This is election is a 
PERSONAL > indictment against GLB people, as you may or may not know 
many so > called Christians voted solely because of their fear of ME 
AND MY > PARTNER.  Based on what they feel are their 
VALUES.  How could people > not give a crap about the WAR, 
Economy, social security, health care > and social justice, in favor 
of keeping my partner from receiving > rights to have access to me in 
the hospital, our house if I die, my > funeral, paid family medical 
leave if I get sick and so forth ?  How > can I not HATE so 
called Christian Americans?  I really think Jesus > was a cool 
guy and I believe he would NOT support the current war > criminal we 
call president.  Bush has started a culture war not unlike > 
those in most Islamic counties, ironic isn't it?> REVOLUTION 
NOW.>>> River>
  

Re: [QUAD-L] election

[Stacy Harim]

You are looking at the seats and not the states.  http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=223797
Stacy
 
"People who hate you do not win unless you hate them. Then you destroy 
yourself"

  - Original Message - 
  From: Jim Lubin 
  To: Stacy Harim ; quad 
  
  Sent: Wednesday, November 03, 2004 3:57 
  PM
  Subject: Re: [QUAD-L] election
  Bush won the election by the largest number of 
  votes in the history of the country. The Republicans gained a larger majority 
  in both the House (234) and the Senate (55).At 11:55 AM 11/3/2004, 
  Stacy Harim wrote:
  You are right.  The people 
that voted for Bush, especially in Ohio, voted on moral grounds and not on 
the economy.  I am pretty upset about it myself, but what can we 
do.  Bush has to face a lot of very angry democrats right now and needs 
to realize that he needs to do more.  The Senate however has many 
democrats in it and now will affect the bills that are getting signed. I 
don't see a lot of Bush's ideas getting through them.  People were 
saying that they don't think that Kerry would be able to take over in the 
middle of a war, but the people voted many democrats into office. I find 
some peace in that.

Re: [QUAD-L] election

[River Wolfe]

Thanks Marikay, I needed to hear that ;-)  Feeling better right now, Kerry gave a wonderful concession speech, I resisted listening at first.  Too hard.  I'm glad I listened, because it reminded me why I think he's such a good and honorable man.  I actually grew up in TX and was born in GA, into a strongly republican family.  I suspect my grandfather was a member  of the KKK.  Up here in Ohio, being different is much easier.  The people practicing the Christian faith as it was meant to be practiced, don't support the Bushies, it's is contradictory to everything you learn as  a Christian.  I'm excited to see the churches that promoted his candidacy, get audited for tax fraud.  We have a long way to go.  A teeny tiny part of me is glad Bush will be repsonsible for Iraq now.  I KNOW that whatever Kerry would have done, they would have used against him and the democratic party for years to come.  I certainly don't want anymore casualties in Iraq, but I fear, and have read, the worse is yet to come.  

peace and justice,

River
i live in Houston Texas about 3 miles from hallaburtinhell,
AND I AGREE WITH EVERYTHING YOU JUST SAID !!
see ,there are Democrats in Texas

Re: [QUAD-L] election

[Jwmjimmy]

These words , sounds like your greatest enemy is within yourself.  I wonder if anyone is a Christian in your thinking.You might hate me . my friend, but I can truly say that I love you , no matter what you think of me. If you will study history , you will see that the Islamic war started many many centuries ago.  This world is experiencing a spiritual warfare also.  A warfare against that which is moral and right against the deception of lust and greed.I pray that you will find true happiness and peace.  Not as the world gives, but that of a loving God.  -- Jimmy , post 48 yrs.
 
How > can I not HATE so called Christian Americans?  I really think Jesus > was a cool guy and I believe he would NOT support the current war > criminal we call president.  Bush has started a culture war not unlike > those in most Islamic counties, ironic isn't it?
 a message dated 11/3/2004 1:55:53 PM Central Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

From: River Wolfe 
To: quad 
Sent: Wednesday, November 03, 2004 2:17 PM
Subject: [QUAD-L] election
> I hate this country right now. Regardless of what some of the JERKS on > this list may want to believe, the election was again stolen by the > BUSH EMPIRE.  Today, I  went for a CAT SCAN and it was all I could do > to even talk to the people there.  This is election is a PERSONAL > indictment against GLB people, as you may or may not know many so > called Christians voted solely because of their fear of ME AND MY > PARTNER.  Based on what they feel are their VALUES.  How could people > not give a crap about the WAR, Economy, social security, health care > and social justice, in favor of keeping my partner from receiving > rights to have access to me in the hospital, our house if I die, my > funeral, paid family medical leave if I get sick and so forth ?  How > can I not HATE so called Christian Americans?  I really think Jesus > was a cool guy and I believe he would NOT support the current war > criminal we call president.  Bush has started a culture war not unlike > those in most Islamic counties, ironic isn't it?> REVOLUTION NOW.>>> River>

Re: [QUAD-L] election

[Jim Lubin]

Bush won the election by the largest number of votes in the
history of the country. The Republicans gained a larger majority in both
the House (234) and the Senate (55).
At 11:55 AM 11/3/2004, Stacy Harim wrote:
You are right.  The people
that voted for Bush, especially in Ohio, voted on moral grounds and not
on the economy.  I am pretty upset about it myself, but what can we
do.  Bush has to face a lot of very angry democrats right now and
needs to realize that he needs to do more.  The Senate however has
many democrats in it and now will affect the bills that are getting
signed. I don't see a lot of Bush's ideas getting through them. 
People were saying that they don't think that Kerry would be able to take
over in the middle of a war, but the people voted many democrats into
office. I find some peace in that.

Re: [QUAD-L] election

[Stacy Harim]

You are right.  The people that voted for Bush, especially in Ohio, 
voted on moral grounds and not on the economy.  I am pretty upset about it 
myself, but what can we do.  Bush has to face a lot of very angry democrats 
right now and needs to realize that he needs to do more.  The Senate 
however has many democrats in it and now will affect the bills that are getting 
signed. I don't see a lot of Bush's ideas getting through them.  People 
were saying that they don't think that Kerry would be able to take over in the 
middle of a war, but the people voted many democrats into office. I find some 
peace in that. I'm so glad the election is over and we can get back to quad 
related stuff. I’m so sick of hearing about this election.  It's not you 
all. It's mainstream media, friends, family, etc.  I just say it's only 4 
more years and I can only pray that good ol' Jed doesn't run next.  It 
would be more like an Empire than a democracy at that point.
 
Stacy
 
"People who hate you do not win unless you hate them. Then you destroy 
yourself"

  - Original Message - 
  From: River Wolfe 
  To: quad 
  Sent: Wednesday, November 03, 2004 2:17 
  PM
  Subject: [QUAD-L] election
  > I hate this country right now. Regardless of what some 
  of the JERKS on > this list may want to believe, the election was again 
  stolen by the > BUSH EMPIRE.  Today, I  went for a CAT SCAN 
  and it was all I could do > to even talk to the people there.  
  This is election is a PERSONAL > indictment against GLB people, as you 
  may or may not know many so > called Christians voted solely because of 
  their fear of ME AND MY > PARTNER.  Based on what they feel are 
  their VALUES.  How could people > not give a crap about the WAR, 
  Economy, social security, health care > and social justice, in favor of 
  keeping my partner from receiving > rights to have access to me in the 
  hospital, our house if I die, my > funeral, paid family medical leave 
  if I get sick and so forth ?  How > can I not HATE so called 
  Christian Americans?  I really think Jesus > was a cool guy and I 
  believe he would NOT support the current war > criminal we call 
  president.  Bush has started a culture war not unlike > those in 
  most Islamic counties, ironic isn't it?> REVOLUTION 
  NOW.>>> 
River>

Re: [QUAD-L] Election!

[QuadPirate]

 OK Silas,
I'm done anyways heck I've already voted but you don't have to read them just delete them.
 
Mark
 
---Original Message---
 

From: Silas Shelburne
Date: Thursday, October 28, 2004 11:49:26
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [QUAD-L] Election!
 
Hello everybody, 
Am I the only one thats sick of all this political shit, its all you hear on tv and the computer.  All this bitching back and forth ain't going to sway anybody one way or another, hell you already know who your going to vote for.  (Just my opinion )  Thanks for letting me get this off my chest.  Silas
 







  IncrediMail - Email has finally evolved - Click Here