CB wrote:
You really can't see how deep you've dug this hole?

It was never released, you say. So you know its contents...how?

Pastorio

Did I miss your answer...?

Could it be the steely-eyed look? The finely plotted life that unfolds
in four panels? Could it reflect a vision of the world? OTOH, it is in
color on weekends.

Pastorio

"Ace (Steve Canyon)" wrote:
You might want to go back and reread your first note to me. The subject
- popular vote versus the EC is one worth discussing as it has so many
implications. For some reason, you felt the need for it to be an
exercise in snide bullshit and diversionary ploys. And your acolytes
with their pat Limbaugh-lines and witless "contributions" added to the
"elevated" discourse.

Your logic is right up there with "She was asking for it, with those
tits and all."

Elevate the level of my intelligence?

So why *do* you call yourself a cartoon character's name? Does that have
something to do with elevating the level of your intelligence?

Pastorio

"Julian D." wrote:
I'm truly sorry you aren't capable of reading what I wrote in the two
paragraphs above your studiously inane comment. I can only hope you
receive remedial care in the future. Although also fitting a book up
there so you can see it will be a challenge. And then there's the light.
Very crowded in there. Have them check your prostate at the same time.
Efficiency is everything...

Pastorio

On Thu, 26 Jun 2003 13:34:57 -0400, Bob Pastorio <pastorio@rica.net>
wrote:

sorry, I never give interviews.....




--

Google searching a few things brought up some more
Lochner gems...

"those losses when the current is travelling through
450 km of wires hung up in the air, with a wind moving
them around.."
-Kurt Lochner's theory on DC transmission line reactive
...losses being produced by wind blowing on the conductors..

"You going to trey and pretend that overhead transmission
lines aren't affected non-symmetrically by the prevailing
winds, Porker?"
-Kurt Lochner demonstrating his vast education in physics.

On Thu, 26 Jun 2003 14:50:38 -0400, Bob Pastorio <pastorio@rica.net>
wrote:

IOW, you don't have any more arguments...

...or maybe you're just afraid to toss out any more rhetoric for fear
that I'll shoot them all down like I've done to all your previous
nonsense and make you look even more foolish?

Yeah, why don't you give it a try for a change. You're really
embarrassing yourself here with your claim that the states were never
sovereign. I imagine that a lot of eighth graders know better than
that....

So in the end you need to know personal information about me. It
always comes down to that for you liberals doesn't it? Sorry, I
don't give interviews... Just think of me as the guy that taught you
a thing or two.....



--

Google searching a few things brought up some more
Lochner gems...

"those losses when the current is travelling through
450 km of wires hung up in the air, with a wind moving
them around.."
-Kurt Lochner's theory on DC transmission line reactive
...losses being produced by wind blowing on the conductors..

"You going to trey and pretend that overhead transmission
lines aren't affected non-symmetrically by the prevailing
winds, Porker?"
-Kurt Lochner demonstrating his vast education in physics.

Bob Pastorio <pastorio@rica.net> wrote in message news:<3EFA6F5F.6E3CBE1@rica.net>...
Get the fuck off my thread you hijacking idiot.

Bob Pastorio <pastorio@rica.net> wrote in message news:<3EFA70CB.CB1A1B42@rica.net>...

Interesting how you characterize the simple facts as "a silly answer."
Do you have such trouble with all truth in life? Hmmm, no wonder
you're such a ridiculous little asshole.


Par for the course.


Uh huh, a course you have yet to learn, mama's boy.



And the
Deep (not) the level of your thinking, whoever the fuck "JD" is. And
as you fade into oblivion, ponder this, you Gen X bigmouth (can you
see my middle finger?). By the way, weren't you told to stay the fuck
off my threads? Oh, I see, you can't come up with one of your own so
you have to latch onto someone else's stuff, even when it's tossed-off
in about five seconds. One-liners and pseudo-witty reparte don't
exactly suffice when you have to make a statement, do they.

Bob Pastorio <pastorio@rica.net> wrote in message news:<3EF93889.95BE5E51@rica.net>...


You, wrong? No, couldn't be. In case you haven't been paying
attention, this is not a direct democracy. It is a republic, or if
you will, a democratic republic. There are reasons to insulate
election of the president from the electorate, hence the Electoral
College. There are good reasons why the electors don't have to vote
the way those who are voting for electors expect them to vote. Most
of the time they do, but they don't have to. The electorate is too
swayed and influenced by propaganda, like the sort that you have been
pushing on here. In short, most of them don't know their asses from a
hole in the ground when it comes to what is really going on in
national politics, just what a very biased media wants them to know.
Were this country run exclusively by the whim of the majority, we'd
have all sorts of nonsense going on. Populous states like New York
and California (and Florida) would be deciding what goes on in Ely,
Nevada. Can you imagine driving across the wide open spaces, breaking
down, and not having a firearm to protect your family if you choose to
possess one? That's what the clowns in New York would do to the rest
of the country. Thank God we live in a republic where the idiots in
the majority can't dictate everu aspect of national policy to the
thoughtful minority. They get their way far too much as it is, hence
the liberal agenda crammed down our throats since the early seventies.
If you are really right about Gore getting more votes than Bush
(which I don't believe for a second), we might be stuck with THAT
asshole for president.


But it's another potential pitfall in an archaic system.


That you dislike that system is tribute to it. For all your imagined
intellectual command, I don't think you quite as smart or wise as the
Founding Fathers. I might be, but you sure ain't.

Bob Pastorio <pastorio@rica.net> wrote in message news:<3EF94B61.B78FC5C4@rica.net>...
No, the Electoral College was instituted so that an overwhelming
majority of votes in one state could still only affect the choice for
president of that one state, thus purposefully limiting the whim of
the national majority. This is as it should be. Knowing the extent
of its influence on the minds of its readers, such organs of socialist
propaganda as the New York Times
can thus only minimally influence the outcome of the election where
held outside the "artificial boundaries" of New York State.
Protection of the rights of the minority are a cornerstone of this
republic, as evidenced by the way the Senate (two votes per state,
regardless of population) and not the House (whose membership is
weighted in favor of the most populous states) is the UPPER HOUSE of
Congress. By the way, your argument about "artificial boundaries" is
a weak one. A number of the boundaries between states are not
articial at all, but are geographically isolating terrain features,
like for example, the Mississippi River. And the boundaries between
the United States and Canada or Mexico could certainly qualify as
"artificial" according to your definition. I suppose you think that
the folks in Vancouver or Juarez should be able to affect local issues
across the border more than those of us who reside within the same
country?

creosote wrote:
This may be the funniest stupid thing I've heard all day.

Post to a newsgroup and suddenly it belongs to you.

Very funny.

Pastorio (or what...?)

creosote wrote:

You claim to know the results of some report that Janet Reno did but
wasn't released. And I'm a liar.

You claim to know what a study that was never done would reveal. And I'm
a liar.

Right. I can see the logic.

And I really like that big, bouncy red fright wig you're wearing.
Doesn't go with the big rubber nose, though. Colors clash.

Pastorio

creosote wrote:
"...president of that one state..."

Thanks for playing. Beavis will be along momentarily to help you home.

"...the whim of the national majority..." The Whim?

And it was Hamilton, wasn't it who knew that there would be a New York
Times? And that New York would grow to be the biggest city in the
country? Right. It was all so clear to them.

And I think he also knew that anyone whose IQ and hat size managed to
transcend two digits would recognize the Times as one of the better
papers in the country. But the downside for you is that they use big
words and have lots of pages.

Or was it Beavis who spotted that New York thing...?

Know how the houses of the English Parliament are structured? Sound
familiar?

You can't really be this obtuse. I refuse to believe it. *Political*
boundaries, like the ones between states are artificial. They're
constructs. Man-made. If a RIVER or an OCEAN happen to be what was
chosen, it's still a *political* boundary. *National* boundaries are
*political* boundaries.

I hate to break you the news, but unlike that map in your Barney's Atlas
of the Whole Wide World, Iowa isn't pink.

Now back to the sandbox with you. Your playmates await your latest
breathless tale of your forays into the adult world.

Pastorio

creosote wrote:
Well, no it isn't. It's a representative democracy except when it isn't.
And you need to brush up on your civics.

So you think the general population is stupid? That your neighbors are
dumb? That you and the other wackos that sing the same tired songs are
the only ones with clarity of vision?

You might be interested to read (with appropriate help) some of the
broadsides that were circulated in colonial times. If you think you've
seen propaganda, you have even more to learn that everybody thinks.
Google up "yellow journalism" if you think these times are fraught with
agendas.

I just love the idea that the collective desires of scores of millions
of people can be dismissed by a lightweight like you as a "whim." This
is even funnier than your thinking that this is your thread.

You can't do that now, shithead. These states you like so well all have
different laws about firearms. If you tried to carry guns in most states
not where you live, it could earn you time. Unfortunately, jail time
won't help your viewpoint. It's prison, not Princeton (thank you Lou
Duva).

Bwahahahahahahahah

But since the early 70s, we've had 3 repub presidents. Congress has been
essentially in repub control through much of it. When did these terrible
liberals have the power to persecute you poor majority types? You are in
the majority, you know. Are you one of "the idiots in the majority"
trying to "dictate everu [sic] aspect of national policy to the
thoughtful minority?"

A lot going on in that one stupid sentence. Gore did get more popular
votes. You don't have to like it, you don't have to accept it. Facts go
on even if you don't like them. It was very close, no question. But...

But more to the point, We didn't get Gore for president because an
archaic system overrode the wishes of the country. More people wanted
Gore. Plain and simple. OTOH, more electors wanted Bush. According to
our system, that's that. But if it had been the other way 'round, your
wails and whines would be ringing across the fruited plain and against
the purple mountain's majesty.

Glad you recognize it.

I'm surely not as smart as most of those guys and you're tied for last,
Zippy.

Tomorrow morning. Report to your remedial shoe-tying class. I bet you
pass this time. Third time's a charm.

Pastorio

creosote wrote:
Here, creosote, find the numbers on the GOP web site for yourself.
http://www.republican.villanova.edu/history.html
National Popular Vote for Gore 50,996,116
National Popular Vote for Bush 50,456,169
Electoral Votes for Gore 266
Electoral Votes for Bush 271
Source: AP 12/22/2000

I note that the numbers don't match exactly the ones cited above. I bet
it's another damn dem lie. Or else Saddam did it. The bastid.

I especially love these contortions and obfuscations that went around
after the election to justify the candidate who got the fewest popular
votes becoming president. These came from the RNC site, too.

Counties won by Gore: 677
Counties won by Bush: 2436
Counties don't vote.

Population of counties won by Gore: 127 Million
Population of counties won by Bush: 143 Million
Looks like the many more voters in Bush's counties stayed home.

Square miles of country won by Gore: 580,000
Square miles of country won by Bush: 2,427,000
Square miles don't vote.

States won by Gore: 19
States won by Bush: 29
States don't vote.
Source: USA Today

It's rather sad that these foolish things were said. All those silly
assertions were merely attempts to make a gossamer victory somehow more
tangible. These little talking points seem almost desperate. Almost
pleading for acceptance. As though any of them matter. If these indices
are important, why have they never before been promulgated?

Ok. I cited number from the RNC.

Care to cite where your numbers came from, creosote?

Oh, wait you didn't cite any. Just made an unsubstantiated claim based
on wishful thinking.

Right. What you say that contradicts about a zillion sources is *TRUTH*
but something that you don't like is bullshit.

Sorry to hold you to actual fact. Thoughtless of me.

Pastorio

creosote wrote:
Still playing that same old harp, huh, Bunky? Shame you're
sooooooooooooooooo wrong. Kind makes the rest of your rants seem even
sillier.

Facts. Like Bush got more votes than Gore? That kind of fact?

I bet you're the research king of the trailer park, right?

Actually, I can't. And I bet you're actually Tremblingly holding it up
to the monitor. And I bet think I'm lying about seeing it.

Bwahahahahah

Yes. I was. Notice how quickly I snapped to and followed instructions.

I bet you think this excuses your stupidity and incapacity to deal with
real points. You can tell me. I'm your friend.

Heh heh

No, they don't. I hope that helped.

Statement? You don' need to make no steenkeen statement. And that's
good. Gets you off that hook.

Pastorio

creosote wrote:
Somebody want to talk to this boy?

Anybody...

Pastorio (didn't think so)

"creosote" <Jaggedridge@aol.com> wrote in message
news:e9d4fd66.0306261530.4f8f89e2@posting.google.c om...
<snip the irrelevant childish verbal attack>

Actually, I have. I have a personal relationship with him. As you could
too, if you'd just set aside all the hate and anger inside you that spills
over into your posts. He even loves conservatives!

Bob Pastorio <pastorio@rica.net> wrote in message news:<3EFBA85C.3590E976@rica.net>...
He's a middle-aged man whom I would talk to at any juncture. The boy
is you, and talking to you interests me not in the least.

Bob Pastorio <pastorio@rica.net> wrote in message news:<3EFB961E.E1363D63@rica.net>...

Creosote didn't claim anything about Janet Reno. That must have been
somebody else. You do have a problem keeping in mind whom you are
criticizing, don't you.




Once again, fool, that was somebody else.


Pretty far into that jug of wine, now, are you?