Good job Gracies Old Man.Worsnanyone oughta feel about two inches tall right now.
He said penal(snicker)
He was absolutely right about the "Odama" thing. It should be "Oduma". Please watch out for that sort of thing in the future.
quote:Posted 22 December 2008 04:33 PM Hide Post
Franken's chances are looking very good as the vote count continues. There is not one thing wrong with a candidate's insisting that there be a careful recount when an election is very, very close. That is all Franken has done--make a claim to that which he is entitled under law. This is a nation of laws, not of men, as some on the right are prone to remind us. Well, here is one on the left, reminding those who have such scorn for Franken, that the laws are made for all and that those who invoke them are not guilty of any evil. It is those who vilify an honest candidate like Franken who are un-American and who have low regard for the law. Shame on those of you who come on here name-calling and reviling a man who is asking for no more and no less than that to which he is clearly entitled under law.
You lefties have done the same thing to Bush for eight years.
quote:Originally posted by gracies old man:quote:Originally posted by beternU:
geddon, I do not put much stock in material posted by persons so unlearned as not to know the difference between the possessive "your" and the contraction "you're"(shakes head). Get literate and then come back and debate with those who have at least a rudimentary familiarity with the mother tongue!
-----------------------------
***Wow, you take the cake, here are a couple of your recent posts. Explain these away, while simultaneously excoriating others mistakes--
"Easily said, but you have not offered a shred of argument to porve that anything Obama has said is drivel".
"Secondhand, you are acutely more perceptive and sensible than the regrettable henhouseprowler, who obviously has not very thoughtfully considered the solid trruth of what I posted".
"And there are far too many penal systems that offer NO rehabilitation programs for drug users, thus virtually assuring a high rate of repeated offenses and repeated inarcerations".
***You might want to reread this post of yours and take your own advice:
Posted 11 December 2008
"Uh, kperk, I don't know how far you went in matters of spelling and letter formation in the early years of your elementary school education, but please know this: The letter "d" is the one where the arc on the bottom part points to the left. The letter "b" is the one where the arc points to the right.......
The last name of the President-elect is spelled with the second of the letters discussed above, namely the "b." It is "Obama," not "Odama," as you have ignorantly rendered it.
You may feel free to continue your idiot ranting, since the First Amendment gives you the right to promote your opinions, however irrelevant and demented they might be. But perhaps your dingbat declarations will take on a nanogram of credibility if you will, henceforth, at least correctly spell the name the person you are irrationally castigating! Not that such beneficiation is likely to dissuade anyone from the obvious conclusion that you are a knee-jerk, scattershot, purveyor of drivel"!
-----------------------
***beneficiation
One entry found.
Main Entry: ben·e·fi·ci·a·tion
Pronunciation: \ˌbe-nə-ˌfi-shē-ˈā-shən\
Function: noun
: the treatment of raw material (as iron ore) to improve physical or chemical properties especially in preparation for smelting
— ben·e·fi·ci·ate \-ˈfi-shē-ˌāt\ transitive verb
***"that's all I got to say 'bout that"
GOM--everyone makes an occasional typo, including me, but the egregious and all-too-commonplace error of WORD SELECTION that I pointed out did NOT occur as an accident of finger placement. "Your" is not a contraction of "you are" and never will be and "you're" is not a possessive pronoun and never will be. The commonplace confusion of these terms is testimony to failure of the public schools to teach the BASICS of English. The best thing that Geddon can do in response to my counsel is to correct his use of these words so as not to seem inadequately schooled in the use of the mother tongue. Then I will have done him a favor by assisting him to an improved level of credibility, which he desperately needs!
*I think YOUR problem is two-fold. Sometimes "book sense" gets in the way of common sense. I think most will agree this forum is a loose, less constrictive, social medium, not a term paper. Nonetheless, YOUR errors would count against you in the same manner that Geddon's use or misuse of the word 'your' or 'you're'. Many times I don't capitalize words or follow the proper rules of grammar, because my time is limited, or mainly because it's not important as I attempt to convey a particular thought. It simply doesn't matter.
*The second error you make is equating correct spelling and proper grammar with intelligence. Many people have dyslexia or other learning disabilities that may hinder them from performing in ways that you would find acceptable, nevertheless, THEIR IQ is extremely high. Edison, Disney, Einstein, Churchill, Nelson Rockafeller, F.W. Woolworth, Patton, Hans Christian Anderson, and Agatha Christie, to name a few, were labelled as slow, unsociable, dull, dreamers, backward, and Thomas Edison was even thought to be mentally ill. Yet, despite what academia or you consider or considered unlearned or illiterate, these people and many others were some of the best
in their fields and many have intelligence that even you would consider superior.
Thus, gud spelin' duzint nessessarly tranzlat two kredubillity! I can see it now, a person comes up with the cure for cancer, and you would automatically discredit his efforts if they happened to omit a period at the end of their sentence or fail to cross their "t" or place and apostrophe in an inappropriate location.
*Then there is always a third possibility for YOUR attitude: you, my friend, are pompous.
Wut did u meen bi yur yuse uv the wurd "beneficiation" the way u yuzed it n the centince?
*The second error you make is equating correct spelling and proper grammar with intelligence. Many people have dyslexia or other learning disabilities that may hinder them from performing in ways that you would find acceptable, nevertheless, THEIR IQ is extremely high. Edison, Disney, Einstein, Churchill, Nelson Rockafeller, F.W. Woolworth, Patton, Hans Christian Anderson, and Agatha Christie, to name a few, were labelled as slow, unsociable, dull, dreamers, backward, and Thomas Edison was even thought to be mentally ill. Yet, despite what academia or you consider or considered unlearned or illiterate, these people and many others were some of the best
in their fields and many have intelligence that even you would consider superior.
Thus, gud spelin' duzint nessessarly tranzlat two kredubillity! I can see it now, a person comes up with the cure for cancer, and you would automatically discredit his efforts if they happened to omit a period at the end of their sentence or fail to cross their "t" or place and apostrophe in an inappropriate location.
*Then there is always a third possibility for YOUR attitude: you, my friend, are pompous.
Wut did u meen bi yur yuse uv the wurd "beneficiation" the way u yuzed it n the centince?
quote:Originally posted by luvurnabor:
I guess the "defacrats" will have to settle for a majority of 58 in the senate and a large majority in the house. Some of you seem to be desperate for any kind of victory, even one "up north" and so close we will never know the true vote totals.
How does it feel to be out of step with the rest of this great country?
We're only out of step with idiot-filled states like california, new york, pennsylvania, ohio, and new jersey. When you look at the map of this great country, you would think the Republicans (though the defacrats did carry far more states this time around than usual) had won. Normally the election map looks like a few blue stains on a massive field of red. If you want to see who carried the day for the defacrats, just watch Parking Wars, Cops, Operation Repo and shows of that type. Liberal states in their finest hour! God bless Alabama and the other Southern states. Its too bad we have to be governed by people elected by so few states.
Unreported statistics regarding the 2008 Presidential election:
December 11, 2008 – 4:49 pm
Professor Joseph Olson of Hamline University School of Law, St. Paul, Minnesota, points out some interesting facts concerning the 2008 Presidential election:
-Number of States won by: Democrats: 20; Republicans: 30
-Square miles of land won by: Democrats: 580,000; Republicans: 2,427,000
-Population of counties won by: Democrats: 127 million; Republicans: 143 million
-Murder rate per 100,000 residents in counties won by: Democrats: 13.2; Republicans: 2.1
Professor Olson adds: “In aggregate, the map of the territory Republican won was mostly the land owned by the taxpaying citizens. Democrat territory mostly encompassed those citizens living in rented or government-owned tenements and living off various forms of government welfare…”
Olson believes the United States is now somewhere between the “complacency and apathy” phase of Professor Tyler’s definition of democracy, with some forty percent of the nation’s population already having reached the “governmental dependency” phase.
December 11, 2008 – 4:49 pm
Professor Joseph Olson of Hamline University School of Law, St. Paul, Minnesota, points out some interesting facts concerning the 2008 Presidential election:
-Number of States won by: Democrats: 20; Republicans: 30
-Square miles of land won by: Democrats: 580,000; Republicans: 2,427,000
-Population of counties won by: Democrats: 127 million; Republicans: 143 million
-Murder rate per 100,000 residents in counties won by: Democrats: 13.2; Republicans: 2.1
Professor Olson adds: “In aggregate, the map of the territory Republican won was mostly the land owned by the taxpaying citizens. Democrat territory mostly encompassed those citizens living in rented or government-owned tenements and living off various forms of government welfare…”
Olson believes the United States is now somewhere between the “complacency and apathy” phase of Professor Tyler’s definition of democracy, with some forty percent of the nation’s population already having reached the “governmental dependency” phase.
quote:Originally posted by gracies old man:
Unreported statistics regarding the 2008 Presidential election:
December 11, 2008 – 4:49 pm
Professor Joseph Olson of Hamline University School of Law, St. Paul, Minnesota, points out some interesting facts concerning the 2008 Presidential election:
-Number of States won by: Democrats: 20; Republicans: 30
-Square miles of land won by: Democrats: 580,000; Republicans: 2,427,000
-Population of counties won by: Democrats: 127 million; Republicans: 143 million
-Murder rate per 100,000 residents in counties won by: Democrats: 13.2; Republicans: 2.1
Professor Olson adds: “In aggregate, the map of the territory Republican won was mostly the land owned by the taxpaying citizens. Democrat territory mostly encompassed those citizens living in rented or government-owned tenements and living off various forms of government welfare…”
Olson believes the United States is now somewhere between the “complacency and apathy” phase of Professor Tyler’s definition of democracy, with some forty percent of the nation’s population already having reached the “governmental dependency” phase.
I think it was George Will who said "Republicans want to do away with slothfulness, defacrats depend on it."
quote:Originally posted by kperk:quote:Originally posted by LMM:
Franken has taken the lead.
Did anybody doubt this would happen??
Low life scum bag will be a senator.
Now that's a scary thought, rep or dem.
No one's fault but the idiot voters of Minnesota. If they had a brain in their head, it never would have been close enough for the inevitable theft of the election.
No , the falt lies in the current incumbent who has obviously pissed off enough of the voters in his state to cause him to be in this situation.
Un-seating a senator is not something voters do just for the hell of it.
As far as the re-count goes, I understand that it is automatic if a vote count is within a certain percent. State law. Don't hold Al responsible. But just a thought here... why is it that it is the Republicans who seem to never want the vote counted ? Could it be some there have a sense of entitlement ?
It could be that when there is a recount the left usually finds a way to steal the election.Except for 2000 when republicans actually stood up to the left.(And now my statement shall be examined by Beternu for misspellings,grammar,punctuation,or anything else that unnerves him/her)
quote:Originally posted by gracies old man:
Unreported statistics regarding the 2008 Presidential election:
December 11, 2008 – 4:49 pm
Professor Joseph Olson of Hamline University School of Law, St. Paul, Minnesota, points out some interesting facts concerning the 2008 Presidential election:
-Number of States won by: Democrats: 20; Republicans: 30
-Square miles of land won by: Democrats: 580,000; Republicans: 2,427,000
-Population of counties won by: Democrats: 127 million; Republicans: 143 million
-Murder rate per 100,000 residents in counties won by: Democrats: 13.2; Republicans: 2.1
Professor Olson adds: “In aggregate, the map of the territory Republican won was mostly the land owned by the taxpaying citizens. Democrat territory mostly encompassed those citizens living in rented or government-owned tenements and living off various forms of government welfare…”
Olson believes the United States is now somewhere between the “complacency and apathy” phase of Professor Tyler’s definition of democracy, with some forty percent of the nation’s population already having reached the “governmental dependency” phase.
I wish I could use this entire post for my signature!
I wish more people would examine facts like this and reconsider who they've aligned themselves with. That's what happened to me. I got to looking around at the mouth-pieces of the dims and realized, "What the heck am I doing in this party?" It's never too late to make a change for the better.quote:Originally posted by gracies old man:
Unreported statistics regarding the 2008 Presidential election:
December 11, 2008 – 4:49 pm
Professor Joseph Olson of Hamline University School of Law, St. Paul, Minnesota, points out some interesting facts concerning the 2008 Presidential election:
-Number of States won by: Democrats: 20; Republicans: 30
-Square miles of land won by: Democrats: 580,000; Republicans: 2,427,000
-Population of counties won by: Democrats: 127 million; Republicans: 143 million
-Murder rate per 100,000 residents in counties won by: Democrats: 13.2; Republicans: 2.1
Professor Olson adds: “In aggregate, the map of the territory Republican won was mostly the land owned by the taxpaying citizens. Democrat territory mostly encompassed those citizens living in rented or government-owned tenements and living off various forms of government welfare…”
Olson believes the United States is now somewhere between the “complacency and apathy” phase of Professor Tyler’s definition of democracy, with some forty percent of the nation’s population already having reached the “governmental dependency” phase.
Forst off, do NOT put much stock in that alleged analysis by Professor Olson. A very similar analyis, purportedly produced by him, has been shown NOT to have been the product of Olson's work, but a fraud. See the link:
Link
Also, the analysis in the faked-up product falsely attributed to Olson is seriously flawed, as explained in the ink, regarding the Gore v. Bush election results. Interestingly, snopes.com made a comparison between Democratic and Republican vote outcomes that might shock the loyalist, true-believing right wingers. Check out this fact:
"The Tax Foundation's chart of federal spending received per dollar of taxes paid by state for 2005 supports the correlation that states that tended to vote Democratic in recent elections paid more in taxes than they received in federal spending, while states that tended to vote Republican in recent elections paid less in taxes than they received in federal spending."
So who is leeching off the treasury now, ye right wing critics of the welfare state?
Not that any of these peripheral statistics or analyses count for much; what COUNTS in a Presidential election, ACCORDING TO THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, which trumps ALL those irrelevant geographical and other factors you cite, is the number of ELECTORAL VOTES received by the WINNING candidate. Right wingers are eager to cite the Constitution when they believe it supports some view they hold dear. Why not, then, look to the CONSTITUTIONAL basis for electing the highest executive officer in the land and not blither over factors that DO NOT COUNT? Obama won. He won big time by creaming the hapless McCain and the fumbling, know-nothing Palin in the electoral vote count. And that is the story; he did not win-and no one wins--by some contrived amalgum of irrelevant and trivial incidentals that have nothing to do with the CONSTITUTIONALLY-PRESCRIBED method of electing Presidents. By the way, one of the factors cited is pretty suspect: "Square miles of land won by: Democrats: 580,000; Republicans: 2,427,000." I would like to know how many of those square miles were counted in western Republican states where very large areas of the land base are PUBLIC LAND, and thus are not logically countable as land occupied by either Democrats or Republicans and thus not logically eligible for inclusion in this spurious index of election "results."
In any case, Obama-Biden won and McCain-Palin lost and the winning and the losing happened through due process of law and the Constitution, which is the way we do it in the good ole U.S.A. Sore losers can contrive all kinds of analyses with which to to salve their post-election wounds, but the open sores and contusions of a thorough beating will not be assuaged that easily.
You are right jcrowder.He won the same way Bush did in 2000.By winning the majority of electoral votes.
Beternjcrowder-
I never stated anything that would lead one to believe I would use anything other that the constitution in matters of elections. I think they are interesting stats that are quite telling as far as who voted for who. I think we have a hugely divided country. I realize Obama won the election. I am not thrilled by that prospect, nonetheless that is the bad hand we've been dealt. McCain was a terrible choice, also.
I sincerely believe you went off on a diatribe about a nonexistent issue, in order to use the term "hapless" again. I hope you feel better now.
I never stated anything that would lead one to believe I would use anything other that the constitution in matters of elections. I think they are interesting stats that are quite telling as far as who voted for who. I think we have a hugely divided country. I realize Obama won the election. I am not thrilled by that prospect, nonetheless that is the bad hand we've been dealt. McCain was a terrible choice, also.
I sincerely believe you went off on a diatribe about a nonexistent issue, in order to use the term "hapless" again. I hope you feel better now.
quote:Originally posted by kperk:quote:Originally posted by gracies old man:
Unreported statistics regarding the 2008 Presidential election:
December 11, 2008 – 4:49 pm
Professor Joseph Olson of Hamline University School of Law, St. Paul, Minnesota, points out some interesting facts concerning the 2008 Presidential election:
-Number of States won by: Democrats: 20; Republicans: 30
-Square miles of land won by: Democrats: 580,000; Republicans: 2,427,000
-Population of counties won by: Democrats: 127 million; Republicans: 143 million
-Murder rate per 100,000 residents in counties won by: Democrats: 13.2; Republicans: 2.1
Professor Olson adds: “In aggregate, the map of the territory Republican won was mostly the land owned by the taxpaying citizens. Democrat territory mostly encompassed those citizens living in rented or government-owned tenements and living off various forms of government welfare…”
Olson believes the United States is now somewhere between the “complacency and apathy” phase of Professor Tyler’s definition of democracy, with some forty percent of the nation’s population already having reached the “governmental dependency” phase.
I wish I could use this entire post for my signature!
You and many others have been HAD by a bogus piece of internet viral crap. You have been had, in all likelihood, by your eagerness to believe just about any garbage anywhere online that has negative things to say about the WINNER of the Presidential election, YOUR NEXT PRESIDENT, Barack Obama! Olson never authored any such analysis, either in past elections or in the current one. Hamline University has formally protested this hoax, as follows:
Link
<<<Good morning,
This urban legend/internet myth has been floating around for nine years, originally as a supposed 'analysis' of the Bush/Gore election in 2000. Here's the info on urban legend debugging site, Snopes: Link
Apparently, yes, it looks like someone wanted to rehash this old, bogus internet hoax and alter it to now state that this fake analysis was on the 2008 election.
Professor Olson of Hamline University did not author anything in this. He even has a statement on his own website at Hamline about this. He's been trying for years to put an end to this internet harassment.
If you do run anything on this, please forward on the truth to your readers.[Ollie's note: we did, and linked to the Snopes post.] A few days ago, Rush Limbaugh ran this fake email and analysis on his show, and when we emailed his producers to request a correction, they did:
Link
Thanks for anything you can do to help dispel the hoax.
Hamline University Public Relations>>>
Even Rush Limbaugh got caught up in this hoax, perhaps while in a prescription drug-induced state of oblivion. He issued a correction and I herewith issue one in your behalf. Now go look for a shorter signature somewhere--one that has some interity and authenticity!
quote:Originally posted by gracies old man:
Beternjcrowder-
I never stated anything that would lead one to believe I would use anything other that the constitution in matters of elections. I think they are interesting stats that are quite telling as far as who voted for who. I think we have a hugely divided country. I realize Obama won the election. I am not thrilled by that prospect, nonetheless that is the bad hand we've been dealt. McCain was a terrible choice, also.
I sincerely believe you went off on a diatribe about a nonexistent issue, in order to use the term "hapless" again. I hope you feel better now.
The real "NONEXISTENT ISSUE," is the nonexistence of the purported analysis by Professor Olson, which is totally BOGUS. It does not exist, never did exist, and is as bogus as prior and similar bogus analyses trumped up by internet deceivers who have caught unwary and gullible persons like you and others who took such delight in the phony Olson analysis because it buttressed their impression of things!
Link
snopes.com says it is a mixture of truth and false
No, the nonexistent issue is I never stated
ANYTHING of the sort that you "rambled and blathered" on about.
The ongoing problem you ridicule others about is these constant typos of yours. Remember, according to you, (or BeternU), credibility is at stake. Here's another example: "Forst off, do NOT put much stock in that alleged analysis by ..............."
Maybe you need to slow down, not get so excited in YOUR zeal to really zing YOUR opponent. Try proofreading before you hit the "post now" button. Remember, CREDIBILITY IS AT STAKE!
ANYTHING of the sort that you "rambled and blathered" on about.
The ongoing problem you ridicule others about is these constant typos of yours. Remember, according to you, (or BeternU), credibility is at stake. Here's another example: "Forst off, do NOT put much stock in that alleged analysis by ..............."
Maybe you need to slow down, not get so excited in YOUR zeal to really zing YOUR opponent. Try proofreading before you hit the "post now" button. Remember, CREDIBILITY IS AT STAKE!
The simple fact that we have primary elections held in northern states first, dwindle down the likely candidates that the south would vote for.
Do away with primaries, or make all primaries held on the same day with all candidates listed.
I wanted to vote for Rudy, who dropped out before Alabama got a chance to vote.
Do away with primaries, or make all primaries held on the same day with all candidates listed.
I wanted to vote for Rudy, who dropped out before Alabama got a chance to vote.
quote:Originally posted by gracies old man:
snopes.com says it is a mixture of truth and false
Nice try, but the FACT is that the alleged analysis by Olson was not done by Olson and MANY of the "facts" in it are actually distortions or outright misrepresentations. Any reliance on something that is flying under colors as false as this is misplaced reliance. The FACT is that you and others of the rightist persuasion were eager to suck up on this tripe, since it seemed to portray the WINNING element of the electorate in a manner you were comfortable with. That is the kind of shallow, unexamined course of inquiry that all too often typifies those on the right, including even the great lardbag-windbag Limbaugh, who got taken in by the same scam. Fact checking can save you embarrassment! snopes.com can be your friend!
kperk at his best: "I wish I could use this entire post for my signature! I wish more people would examine facts like this and reconsider who they've aligned themselves with. That's what happened to me. I got to looking around at the mouth-pieces of the dims and realized, 'What the heck am I doing in this party?' It's never too late to make a change for the better."
The "facts" you would have people to examine, kperk, are the so-called "facts" in a phony post falsely attributed to a person who never wrote it. YOU need to do a better job of checking YOUR facts, bub! And maybe you should take a close look around at the mouthpieces of the Repubs and in particular those among them who invent and circulate false and viral messages. You and gracies old man just got beside yourselve from reading that tripe and assuming it was true and its author was indeed an esteemed law professor. You both bit hard and got hooked by bogus stuff, all because of your eagerness to believe something negative about the WINNER of the 2008 Presidential election, the President-elect, BARACK OBAMA, YOUR NEXT PRESIDENT!!!
The "facts" you would have people to examine, kperk, are the so-called "facts" in a phony post falsely attributed to a person who never wrote it. YOU need to do a better job of checking YOUR facts, bub! And maybe you should take a close look around at the mouthpieces of the Repubs and in particular those among them who invent and circulate false and viral messages. You and gracies old man just got beside yourselve from reading that tripe and assuming it was true and its author was indeed an esteemed law professor. You both bit hard and got hooked by bogus stuff, all because of your eagerness to believe something negative about the WINNER of the 2008 Presidential election, the President-elect, BARACK OBAMA, YOUR NEXT PRESIDENT!!!
why did you change YOUR name? BeternU was so appropriate.
quote:Originally posted by jcrowder:
kperk at his best: "I wish I could use this entire post for my signature! I wish more people would examine facts like this and reconsider who they've aligned themselves with. That's what happened to me. I got to looking around at the mouth-pieces of the dims and realized, 'What the heck am I doing in this party?' It's never too late to make a change for the better."
The "facts" you would have people to examine, kperk, are the so-called "facts" in a phony post falsely attributed to a person who never wrote it. YOU need to do a better job of checking YOUR facts, bub! And maybe you should take a close look around at the mouthpieces of the Repubs and in particular those among them who invent and circulate false and viral messages. You and gracies old man just got beside yourselve from reading that tripe and assuming it was true and its author was indeed an esteemed law professor. You both bit hard and got hooked by bogus stuff, all because of your eagerness to believe something negative about the WINNER of the 2008 Presidential election, the President-elect, BARACK OBAMA, YOUR NEXT PRESIDENT!!!
Don't get so excited you old t#rd. Maybe he didn't say it but you know its all true unless you are completely brain dead. Go around and ask all the welfare recipients, druggies, and criminals and find out how many are Republicans. Let me give your mushy brain a hint. 0! Goober.
Why did you change your name Beternu?
BeternU/jcrowder(?)/Whoeveryouare:
You'll notice on page 4 that excelman misspelled "fault" as "falt" while agreeing with your liberal pro-Obama-therefore-pro-abortion views. However, it seems that you have mistakenly neglected to jump on him/her with one of your pompous, blathering diatribes that labels him/her one step short of mentally retarded.
Could it be that you are an idealogue who only attacks those who disagree with your liberal views?
You'll notice on page 4 that excelman misspelled "fault" as "falt" while agreeing with your liberal pro-Obama-therefore-pro-abortion views. However, it seems that you have mistakenly neglected to jump on him/her with one of your pompous, blathering diatribes that labels him/her one step short of mentally retarded.
Could it be that you are an idealogue who only attacks those who disagree with your liberal views?