Re: Time to bomb Iran?

[John Forrest Tomlinson]

On Sat, 16 Jun 2007 11:19:49 -0700, Johnny Sunset
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Sornson must be seeing JFT's "stuff", since he is including quoted
>portions in his posting, yet claims not to see it. Delusional?

He's responded to thing I wrote at least 10 times since announcing I
was in his killfile.

But never actually answering questions I've asked him -- I think
that's what he's trying to avoid by filtering out my comments.

He has claimed he put me in a killfile so that I could no longer
distort his writing. I don't think I do that, but even if I did he
doesn't seem to understand that his killfiing me doesn't prevent me
from writing about and commenting on his posts in ways that other
people can see.

It's an example of how doesn't have a very good grasp of how usenet
works.

--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

 

[Johnny Sunset]

On Jun 16, 11:12 am, Bill Sornson wrote:
> R Brickston wrote:
> > On Fri, 15 Jun 2007 16:40:01 -0700, Johnny Sunset wrote:
>
> >> ...5 to 4 by the US Supreme Court. A full recount would have shown
> >> Gore winning Florida, even after Katherine Harris and Choicepoint
> >> purged thousands of voters that should have been eligible. Same story
> >> with the Blackwell purges and other machinations in Ohio in 2004.
>
> > How on Earth did you get the knowledge of what a full recount would
> > have revealed?
>
> Gee, you'd think someone would have investigated this...like, 142 times!
> LOL
>
> Bill "I still like how they announced Gore the winner while polls still open
> in western part of FL" S.

Or how Fox News consultant and Bush cousin John Ellis prematurely made
the call for Bush, leading the other networks to follow in a "me too"
rush, resulting in the public impression that Gore was a sore loser
for contesting the result?

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
Rationality, as the primary cognitive system for comprehending our
world, has been rejected in favor of unyielding dogmatic belief. -
David Michael Green

 

[Bill Sornson]

Johnny Sunset wrote:
> On Jun 16, 11:17 am, Bill Sornson wrote:
>> R Brickston wrote:
>>> On Sat, 16 Jun 2007 06:50:43 -0700, Johnny Sunset wrote:
>>
>>>> On Jun 16, 8:15 am, R Brickston wrote:
>>
>>>>>> On Sat, 16 Jun 2007 05:38:57 -0700, Johnny Sunset wrote:
>>
>>>>>>> On Jun 16, 6:30 am, R Brickston wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Fri, 15 Jun 2007 16:40:01 -0700, Johnny Sunset
>>
>>>>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> ...5 to 4 by the US Supreme Court. A full recount would have
>>>>>>>>> shown Gore winning Florida, even after Katherine Harris and
>>>>>>>>> Choicepoint purged thousands of voters that should have been
>>>>>>>>> eligible. Same story with the Blackwell purges and other
>>>>>>>>> machinations in Ohio in 2004.
>>
>>>>>>>> How on Earth did you get the knowledge of what a full recount
>>>>>>>> would have revealed?
>>
>>>>>>> The National Opinion Research Center at the University of
>>>>>>> Chicago did a review of all machine uncounted ballots with the
>>>>>>> following results:
>>
>>>>>>> Standard as set by each county Canvassing Board during their
>>>>>>> survey - Gore by 171
>>>>>>> Fully punched chads and limited marks on optical ballots - Gore
>>>>>>> by 115 Any dimples or optical mark - Gore by 107
>>>>>>> One corner of chad detached or optical mark - Gore by 60
>>
>>>>>>> This, of course, ignores all the other efforts to suppress the
>>>>>>> vote in precincts known to favor democrats.
>>
>>>>>> 1. What is meant by review?
>>
>>>>>> 2. What is the margin of error?
>>
>>>>> Forget it, I did my own research; after reading a report by one of
>>>>> the eight news agencies that commissioned the study, I'm baffled
>>>>> how you come to an opposite conclusion:
>>
>>>>> Florida recount study: Bush Still Wins
>>
>>>>> WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A comprehensive study of the 2000 presidential
>>>>> election in Florida suggests that if the U.S. Supreme Court had
>>>>> allowed a statewide vote recount to proceed, Republican candidate
>>>>> George W. Bush would still have been elected president.
>>
>>>>> The National Opinion Research Center (NORC) at the University of
>>>>> Chicago conducted the six-month study for a consortium of eight
>>>>> news media companies, including CNN.
>>
>>>>> Suppose that Gore got what he originally wanted -- a hand recount
>>>>> in heavily Democratic Broward, Palm Beach, Miami-Dade and Volusia
>>>>> counties. The study indicates that Gore would have picked up some
>>>>> additional support but still would have lost the election -- by a
>>>>> 225-vote margin statewide.
>>
>>>>> http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/florida.ballots/stories/main.html
>>
>>>> Why Gore only wanted a partial recount is a mystery, but has no
>>>> relevance to the way people actually INTENDED to vote. The full
>>>> state recount IS relevant to the voters' intentions.
>>
>>> Intention is not counted and statewide, one would think that a
>>> similar number of unintended votes for Dems were made by mistake.
>>
>>>> This still ignores the Harris/Choicepoint purges of eligible
>>>> voters.
>>
>>> Unfortunately, is too late for recourse. How did Bush pull off 2004?
>>
>> Absolute imbecile for an opponent. Unpopular war, major network
>> forging docs to defeat him (a month before the election!), total
>> mainstream press opposition (with resulting slanted "news
>> coverage"), and yet he still won with the most votes of any
>> candidate in history. Only possible explanation: Kerry is an
>> incredible ****. LOL
>
> The Kerry campaign performance makes one think that he was SUPPOSED to
> lose the election.

Meaning what?

> Of course, the elections are mostly a choice between two groups of
> overseers, chosen primarily by the financial elite who truly run the
> US.

Gee, I sort of thought I had a choice between GWB and JFK (is that right?).
That's what MY ballot said, anyway...

 

[Bill Sornson]

Johnny Sunset wrote:
> On Jun 16, 12:59 pm, R Brickston <rb20170REMOVE.yahoo.com@> wrote:
>> On Sat, 16 Jun 2007 10:21:47 -0700, Johnny Sunset wrote:
>> ...
>>> This is likely only the tip of the iceberg.
>>
>> Rather than go through point by point, here's why I think most of
>> this is bs, Dems are in charge of both houses, why no committee
>> hearings, panels and other inquisitions? In fact, the only outrage
>> seems to come from the fringes.
>
> Enough outrage in Ohio to elect Democrats in 2006, despite the
> "structural" disadvantages.
>
> The mainstream media and pundits would ridicule anyone who revisits
> the earlier elections, with the stupid "get over it" retort.

You've GOT to be kidding.

> Note that
> Brickston uses the term "fringes", indicating he has the same mindset.
>
> Many Democrats feed from the same campaign contribution trough as the
> Republicans. - "As long as I get mine, I won't rock the boat".

Horseshit. If they could discredit the 2004 elelction by any means
whatsoever, they would do it.

You keep forgetting: the SHADOW GOVERNMENT! (Why else did they wait till
well after the 2006 elections to indict William Jeffererson, D LA, for
crimes committed -- on tape -- in 2004 and even earlier?!?)

 

[Bill Sornson]

Johnny Sunset wrote:
> On Jun 16, 11:12 am, Bill Sornson wrote:
>> R Brickston wrote:
>>> On Fri, 15 Jun 2007 16:40:01 -0700, Johnny Sunset wrote:
>>
>>>> ...5 to 4 by the US Supreme Court. A full recount would have shown
>>>> Gore winning Florida, even after Katherine Harris and Choicepoint
>>>> purged thousands of voters that should have been eligible. Same
>>>> story with the Blackwell purges and other machinations in Ohio in
>>>> 2004.
>>
>>> How on Earth did you get the knowledge of what a full recount would
>>> have revealed?
>>
>> Gee, you'd think someone would have investigated this...like, 142
>> times! LOL
>>
>> Bill "I still like how they announced Gore the winner while polls
>> still open in western part of FL" S.
>
> Or how Fox News consultant and Bush cousin John Ellis prematurely made
> the call for Bush, leading the other networks to follow in a "me too"
> rush, resulting in the public impression that Gore was a sore loser
> for contesting the result?

At least the polls were closed by then, unlike the incident I mentioned.
It's all about AFFECTING actual votes.

 

[Johnny Sunset]

On Jun 16, 4:09 pm, Bill Sornson wrote:
> Johnny Sunset wrote:
> > On Jun 16, 11:17 am, Bill Sornson wrote:
> >>
> >> Absolute imbecile for an opponent. Unpopular war, major network
> >> forging docs to defeat him (a month before the election!), total
> >> mainstream press opposition (with resulting slanted "news
> >> coverage"), and yet he still won with the most votes of any
> >> candidate in history. Only possible explanation: Kerry is an
> >> incredible ****. LOL
>
> > The Kerry campaign performance makes one think that he was SUPPOSED to
> > lose the election.
>
> Meaning what?

That the powers that be insured that Kerry won the nomination, but
then did not mount a serious campaign? It is astonishing how
Democratic candidates keep hiring the same known losers as campaign
advisors. The only Democrat in recent history that actually acted like
he wanted to win was Willie Clinton.

> > Of course, the elections are mostly a choice between two groups of
> > overseers, chosen primarily by the financial elite who truly run the
> > US.
>
> Gee, I sort of thought I had a choice between GWB and JFK (is that right?).
> That's what MY ballot said, anyway...

When the "winner takes all", no instant runoff system makes third
party candidacies unviable, and both main parties represent the
interest of the same small group, how is there a real choice?

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

 

[Johnny Sunset]

On Jun 16, 4:13 pm, Bill Sornson wrote:
> Johnny Sunset wrote:
> > On Jun 16, 12:59 pm, R Brickston <rb20170REMOVE.yahoo.com@> wrote:
> >> On Sat, 16 Jun 2007 10:21:47 -0700, Johnny Sunset wrote:
> >> ...
> >>> This is likely only the tip of the iceberg.
>
> >> Rather than go through point by point, here's why I think most of
> >> this is bs, Dems are in charge of both houses, why no committee
> >> hearings, panels and other inquisitions? In fact, the only outrage
> >> seems to come from the fringes.
>
> > Enough outrage in Ohio to elect Democrats in 2006, despite the
> > "structural" disadvantages.
>
> > The mainstream media and pundits would ridicule anyone who revisits
> > the earlier elections, with the stupid "get over it" retort.
>
> You've GOT to be kidding.

Oh please. How many "Sore/Loserman" comments were there at the end of
2001?

> > Note that
> > Brickston uses the term "fringes", indicating he has the same mindset.
>
> > Many Democrats feed from the same campaign contribution trough as the
> > Republicans. - "As long as I get mine, I won't rock the boat".
>
> Horseshit. If they could discredit the 2004 elelction by any means
> whatsoever, they would do it.
>
> You keep forgetting: the SHADOW GOVERNMENT! (Why else did they wait till
> well after the 2006 elections to indict William Jeffererson, D LA, for
> crimes committed -- on tape -- in 2004 and even earlier?!?)

Got to stop listening to so much talk radio or Faux News, or whatever
you get your wacko ideas from - they are more out there than Bill
Baka's 50-mph kiddie tricycle ride.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

 

[Johnny Sunset]

On Jun 16, 4:15 pm, Bill Sornson wrote:
> Johnny Sunset wrote:
> > On Jun 16, 11:12 am, Bill Sornson wrote:
> >> R Brickston wrote:
> >>> On Fri, 15 Jun 2007 16:40:01 -0700, Johnny Sunset wrote:
>
> >>>> ...5 to 4 by the US Supreme Court. A full recount would have shown
> >>>> Gore winning Florida, even after Katherine Harris and Choicepoint
> >>>> purged thousands of voters that should have been eligible. Same
> >>>> story with the Blackwell purges and other machinations in Ohio in
> >>>> 2004.
>
> >>> How on Earth did you get the knowledge of what a full recount would
> >>> have revealed?
>
> >> Gee, you'd think someone would have investigated this...like, 142
> >> times! LOL
>
> >> Bill "I still like how they announced Gore the winner while polls
> >> still open in western part of FL" S.
>
> > Or how Fox News consultant and Bush cousin John Ellis prematurely made
> > the call for Bush, leading the other networks to follow in a "me too"
> > rush, resulting in the public impression that Gore was a sore loser
> > for contesting the result?
>
> At least the polls were closed by then, unlike the incident I mentioned.
> It's all about AFFECTING actual votes.

Don't the voter's in the Florida panhandle care about local elections
also?

Speaking about affecting actual votes, why have the anomalous results
of the last 4 national elections almost universally favored
Republicans?

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

 

[[email protected]]

> As a pre-schooler, I exceeded the speed on which I could keep my feet
> on the pedals of my trike while going downhill. Based on my estimates
> of the drive wheel diameter [1] and maximum possible cadence, I was
> probably going 8-10 mph.
>
> [1] This was of course, a front-wheel-direct-drive, moving bottom
> bracket, upright delta trike.

<yawn> Big Wheel.

 

[R Brickston]

On Sat, 16 Jun 2007 11:15:48 -0700, Johnny Sunset
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On Jun 16, 12:59 pm, R Brickston <rb20170REMOVE.yahoo.com@> wrote:
>> On Sat, 16 Jun 2007 10:21:47 -0700, Johnny Sunset wrote:
>> ...
>> >This is likely only the tip of the iceberg.
>>
>> Rather than go through point by point, here's why I think most of this
>> is bs, Dems are in charge of both houses, why no committee hearings,
>> panels and other inquisitions? In fact, the only outrage seems to come
>> from the fringes.
>
>Enough outrage in Ohio to elect Democrats in 2006, despite the
>"structural" disadvantages.

Ohio Dems elected in 2006 were on a "voter fraud outrage" platform?
That is one hell of a stretch. Further, it would mean that
dissatisfaction with the Bush administration (the published reason for
most all other Dem election success) had nothing to do with it.

>The mainstream media and pundits would ridicule anyone who revisits
>the earlier elections, with the stupid "get over it" retort.

Risible statement. The fringe (or otherwise) are afraid to talk about
voter fraud. Please...


>Note that Brickston uses the term "fringes", indicating he has the same mindset.

Wow! Where did you get the idea you could read minds?


>Many Democrats feed from the same campaign contribution trough as the
>Republicans. - "As long as I get mine, I won't rock the boat".

 

[R Brickston]

On Sat, 16 Jun 2007 14:30:12 -0400, John Forrest Tomlinson
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On Sat, 16 Jun 2007 17:52:21 GMT, R Brickston
><rb20170REMOVE.yahoo.com@> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 16 Jun 2007 12:40:37 -0400, John Forrest Tomlinson
>><[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 16 Jun 2007 14:47:38 GMT, R Brickston
>>><rb20170REMOVE.yahoo.com@> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Wear you down? I missed the link, my error. You were "worn down" by
>>>>what, 38 seconds of keyboard input?
>>>
>>>When you can't bother to read properly but just ask for stuff, it's
>>>kind of weird.
>>>
>>>Do links at least show up in another color on your monitor or
>>>something. Maybe you could look into getting a computer system to
>>>help make that sort of stuff more obvious.
>>>
>>>Just a suggestion.
>>
>>Or better, I could be just be like you and never make a mistake.
>
>Oh, I make mistakes.

And no one else is allowed to, apparently.

 

[Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman]

On Jun 16, 5:00 pm, [email protected] wrote:
> > As a pre-schooler, I exceeded the speed on which I could keep my feet
> > on the pedals of my trike while going downhill. Based on my estimates
> > of the drive wheel diameter [1] and maximum possible cadence, I was
> > probably going 8-10 mph.
>
> > [1] This was of course, a front-wheel-direct-drive, moving bottom
> > bracket, upright delta trike.
>
> <yawn> Big Wheel.

No, Big Wheels [1] have a recumbent seating position. My trike was a
steel frame upright.

[1] <http://www.originalbigwheel.com/bigwheelhist.html>.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

 

[Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman]

On Jun 16, 5:01 pm, R Brickston wrote:
> On Sat, 16 Jun 2007 11:15:48 -0700, Johnny Sunset
>
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >On Jun 16, 12:59 pm, R Brickston <rb20170REMOVE.yahoo.com@> wrote:
> >> On Sat, 16 Jun 2007 10:21:47 -0700, Johnny Sunset wrote:
> >> ...
> >> >This is likely only the tip of the iceberg.
>
> >> Rather than go through point by point, here's why I think most of this
> >> is bs, Dems are in charge of both houses, why no committee hearings,
> >> panels and other inquisitions? In fact, the only outrage seems to come
> >> from the fringes.
>
> >Enough outrage in Ohio to elect Democrats in 2006, despite the
> >"structural" disadvantages.
>
> Ohio Dems elected in 2006 were on a "voter fraud outrage" platform?
> That is one hell of a stretch.

I sure make Blackwell unpopular as a candidate for governor - enough
so that if he had "won", the rigging would have been way too obvious.

> Further, it would mean that
> dissatisfaction with the Bush administration (the published reason for
> most all other Dem election success) had nothing to do with it.

The two are hardly exclusive.

> >The mainstream media and pundits would ridicule anyone who revisits
> >the earlier elections, with the stupid "get over it" retort.
>
> Risible statement. The fringe (or otherwise) are afraid to talk about
> voter fraud. Please...

There have been plenty of people talking about voter fraud - just not
mainstream media or Democratic Party "leadership". (using the term
leadership very loosely).

> >Note that Brickston uses the term "fringes", indicating he has the same mindset.
>
> Wow! Where did you get the idea you could read minds?

Why else was the term "fringes" used?

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

 

[John Forrest Tomlinson]

On Sat, 16 Jun 2007 22:02:20 GMT, R Brickston
<rb20170REMOVE.yahoo.com@> wrote:

>On Sat, 16 Jun 2007 14:30:12 -0400, John Forrest Tomlinson
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 16 Jun 2007 17:52:21 GMT, R Brickston
>><rb20170REMOVE.yahoo.com@> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 16 Jun 2007 12:40:37 -0400, John Forrest Tomlinson
>>><[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sat, 16 Jun 2007 14:47:38 GMT, R Brickston
>>>><rb20170REMOVE.yahoo.com@> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Wear you down? I missed the link, my error. You were "worn down" by
>>>>>what, 38 seconds of keyboard input?
>>>>
>>>>When you can't bother to read properly but just ask for stuff, it's
>>>>kind of weird.
>>>>
>>>>Do links at least show up in another color on your monitor or
>>>>something. Maybe you could look into getting a computer system to
>>>>help make that sort of stuff more obvious.
>>>>
>>>>Just a suggestion.
>>>
>>>Or better, I could be just be like you and never make a mistake.
>>
>>Oh, I make mistakes.
>
>And no one else is allowed to, apparently.

You're allowed.

I just think that, at best, you're too quick on the "cite please"
trigger and at worst you use that sort of request as a stick.

Yeah, I think you were using it as a stick recently and it wasn't an
honest mistake. Maybe I'm mistaken though.
--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

 

[R Brickston]

On Sat, 16 Jun 2007 19:41:16 -0400, John Forrest Tomlinson
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On Sat, 16 Jun 2007 22:02:20 GMT, R Brickston
><rb20170REMOVE.yahoo.com@> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 16 Jun 2007 14:30:12 -0400, John Forrest Tomlinson
>><[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 16 Jun 2007 17:52:21 GMT, R Brickston
>>><rb20170REMOVE.yahoo.com@> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sat, 16 Jun 2007 12:40:37 -0400, John Forrest Tomlinson
>>>><[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Sat, 16 Jun 2007 14:47:38 GMT, R Brickston
>>>>><rb20170REMOVE.yahoo.com@> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>Wear you down? I missed the link, my error. You were "worn down" by
>>>>>>what, 38 seconds of keyboard input?
>>>>>
>>>>>When you can't bother to read properly but just ask for stuff, it's
>>>>>kind of weird.
>>>>>
>>>>>Do links at least show up in another color on your monitor or
>>>>>something. Maybe you could look into getting a computer system to
>>>>>help make that sort of stuff more obvious.
>>>>>
>>>>>Just a suggestion.
>>>>
>>>>Or better, I could be just be like you and never make a mistake.
>>>
>>>Oh, I make mistakes.
>>
>>And no one else is allowed to, apparently.
>
>You're allowed.
>
>I just think that, at best, you're too quick on the "cite please"
>trigger and at worst you use that sort of request as a stick.
>
>Yeah, I think you were using it as a stick recently and it wasn't an
>honest mistake. Maybe I'm mistaken though.

Your truth, not the truth.

 

[John Forrest Tomlinson]

On Sat, 16 Jun 2007 14:06:53 -0700, "Bill Sornson" <[email protected]>
wrote:

> I only see his stuff when someone else replies to him. What
>I'm commenting on is his continuance to ADDRESS THINGS TO ME. He can
>comment on what I write all he wants, but when he keeps asking me questions
>or otherwise directing things to me when he knows I plonked him, well...
>it's just a little sad slash pathetic slash delusional.

You've clearly seen at least some questions I've addressed to you, so
my questioning you is working, to some extent.

But you've chosen not to answer any of them. Not leading questions,
but very simple ones. Typical of a coward.
--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

 

[Bill Sornson]

Johnny Sunset wrote:
> On Jun 16, 4:13 pm, Bill Sornson wrote:
>> Johnny Sunset wrote:
>>> On Jun 16, 12:59 pm, R Brickston <rb20170REMOVE.yahoo.com@> wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 16 Jun 2007 10:21:47 -0700, Johnny Sunset wrote:
>>>> ...
>>>>> This is likely only the tip of the iceberg.
>>
>>>> Rather than go through point by point, here's why I think most of
>>>> this is bs, Dems are in charge of both houses, why no committee
>>>> hearings, panels and other inquisitions? In fact, the only outrage
>>>> seems to come from the fringes.
>>
>>> Enough outrage in Ohio to elect Democrats in 2006, despite the
>>> "structural" disadvantages.
>>
>>> The mainstream media and pundits would ridicule anyone who revisits
>>> the earlier elections, with the stupid "get over it" retort.
>>
>> You've GOT to be kidding.
>
> Oh please. How many "Sore/Loserman" comments were there at the end of
> 2001?

I hear more about how Gore "really won" that elelction now than ever before
(other than immediately after). Hell, watch PMSNBC and it's either that or
Scooter Libby, 24/7.

>>> Note that
>>> Brickston uses the term "fringes", indicating he has the same
>>> mindset.
>>
>>> Many Democrats feed from the same campaign contribution trough as
>>> the Republicans. - "As long as I get mine, I won't rock the boat".
>>
>> Horseshit. If they could discredit the 2004 elelction by any means
>> whatsoever, they would do it.
>>
>> You keep forgetting: the SHADOW GOVERNMENT! (Why else did they
>> wait till well after the 2006 elections to indict William
>> Jeffererson, D LA, for crimes committed -- on tape -- in 2004 and
>> even earlier?!?)
>
> Got to stop listening to so much talk radio or Faux News, or whatever
> you get your wacko ideas from - they are more out there than Bill
> Baka's 50-mph kiddie tricycle ride.

You don't think the press "cooperated" in Macaca, Foley, Libby, etc. while
all but completely ignoring Berger, Jefferson, and now Feinstein?!? (Her
husband made millions fron defense contracts while she sat on the
Appropriations Committee, and NO ONE says a word about it. Do you honestly
think they'd ignore a Republican doing that?!?)

Get real. (Not faux.)

 

[Bill Sornson]

Johnny Sunset wrote:
> On Jun 16, 4:15 pm, Bill Sornson wrote:
>> Johnny Sunset wrote:
>>> On Jun 16, 11:12 am, Bill Sornson wrote:
>>>> R Brickston wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 15 Jun 2007 16:40:01 -0700, Johnny Sunset wrote:
>>
>>>>>> ...5 to 4 by the US Supreme Court. A full recount would have
>>>>>> shown Gore winning Florida, even after Katherine Harris and
>>>>>> Choicepoint purged thousands of voters that should have been
>>>>>> eligible. Same story with the Blackwell purges and other
>>>>>> machinations in Ohio in 2004.
>>
>>>>> How on Earth did you get the knowledge of what a full recount
>>>>> would have revealed?
>>
>>>> Gee, you'd think someone would have investigated this...like, 142
>>>> times! LOL
>>
>>>> Bill "I still like how they announced Gore the winner while polls
>>>> still open in western part of FL" S.
>>
>>> Or how Fox News consultant and Bush cousin John Ellis prematurely
>>> made the call for Bush, leading the other networks to follow in a
>>> "me too" rush, resulting in the public impression that Gore was a
>>> sore loser for contesting the result?
>>
>> At least the polls were closed by then, unlike the incident I
>> mentioned. It's all about AFFECTING actual votes.
>
> Don't the voter's in the Florida panhandle care about local elections
> also?

Huh? (BTW, it's "voters".)

> Speaking about affecting actual votes, why have the anomalous results
> of the last 4 national elections almost universally favored
> Republicans?

Because you're delusionally partison. HTH

 

[John Forrest Tomlinson]

On Sat, 16 Jun 2007 14:06:53 -0700, "Bill Sornson" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Bright bulb: I only see his stuff when someone else replies to him. What
>I'm commenting on is his continuance to ADDRESS THINGS TO ME.

I'm not sure if it's possible with Outlook Express which you seem to
be using, but with some newsreaders you can filter posts by specific
words anywhere in the message and not just by the author. So that
would remove, for you, any posts from me.

I'll still respond to you and ask you questions -- if you play in
public you get treated as being in public, but at least you won't look
like such a dope quoting things I wrote while claiming you've filtered
me out.

Just a suggestion.
--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

 

[Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman]

On Jun 16, 8:27 pm, "Bill Sornson" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Johnny Sunset wrote:
> > On Jun 16, 4:15 pm, Bill Sornson wrote:
> >> Johnny Sunset wrote:
> >>> On Jun 16, 11:12 am, Bill Sornson wrote:
> >>>> R Brickston wrote:
> >>>>> On Fri, 15 Jun 2007 16:40:01 -0700, Johnny Sunset wrote:
>
> >>>>>> ...5 to 4 by the US Supreme Court. A full recount would have
> >>>>>> shown Gore winning Florida, even after Katherine Harris and
> >>>>>> Choicepoint purged thousands of voters that should have been
> >>>>>> eligible. Same story with the Blackwell purges and other
> >>>>>> machinations in Ohio in 2004.
>
> >>>>> How on Earth did you get the knowledge of what a full recount
> >>>>> would have revealed?
>
> >>>> Gee, you'd think someone would have investigated this...like, 142
> >>>> times! LOL
>
> >>>> Bill "I still like how they announced Gore the winner while polls
> >>>> still open in western part of FL" S.
>
> >>> Or how Fox News consultant and Bush cousin John Ellis prematurely
> >>> made the call for Bush, leading the other networks to follow in a
> >>> "me too" rush, resulting in the public impression that Gore was a
> >>> sore loser for contesting the result?
>
> >> At least the polls were closed by then, unlike the incident I
> >> mentioned. It's all about AFFECTING actual votes.
>
> > Don't the voter's in the Florida panhandle care about local elections
> > also?
>
> Huh? (BTW, it's "voters".)
>
> > Speaking about affecting actual votes, why have the anomalous results
> > of the last 4 national elections almost universally favored
> > Republicans?
>
> Because you're delusionally partison. HTH

Huh? I am certainly not a registered Democrat, and find many of the
Democratic politicians disgusting.

BTW it is "partisan".

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia