"Foreign" programmers' thoughts on American politics?




I've changed the subject-line on this subthread.
I'm sure many will find all of this off-topic, but any request
to repost it to alt.ignorant.americans.ranting.aimlessly
would of course be useless. :-)

Most of the people in this ng are intelligent. I appeal to the
"foreigners" to read the following facts and offer opinions.
(Americans need not respond. As is apparent from these
messages our minds are all hopelessly made up and we
are now capable only of irate rants. Only *very* poorly
informed Americans haven't taken sides long ago; the
idea that it is these "undecided voters" who will pick the
next President is itself very hilarious and very sad.)

On Nov 3, 2:29 am, spinoza1111 <spinoza1...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Oct 31, 3:53 pm, "Chris M. Thomasson" <n...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
He wants his candidate of choice to blindly accept illegal votes no matter
what; wow, what a FOOL. I want both of the candidates to REJECT ANY illegal
votes as it indeed RUINS the integrity of the election overall; period.

Mathematically, illegal votes have no effect ... unless ...
What DOES have an effect are frivolous lawsuits ...

Mr. Thomasson's position suggests that he is totally unaware
of facts such as the following, shown at
http://www.brennancenter.org/content/resource/voter_purges

In 2004, for example, Florida planned to remove 48,000
“suspected felons” from its voter rolls. Many of those
identified were in fact eligible to vote. The flawed
process generated a list of 22,000 African Americans
to be purged, but only 61 voters with Hispanic surnames,
notwithstanding Florida’s sizable Hispanic population.

For the benefit of "foreigners" I must point out that Florida's
Hispanic voting is *very* stongly pro-Republican,
Afro-American voting *very* strongly pro-Democrat.

Mr. Thomasson's postings on programming seem quite
competent. When I was a workaholic in Silicon Valley
I seldom had time to read the newspapers and perhaps he
suffers from similar blinders. It's good that he apparently
calls for post-election reconciliation, but I'm afraid that may
be optimistic:

While the Democrats have indicated they will not attempt
to prosecute the several high Bush Administration officials
who committed felonies, the idea that "Middle America" will
rally around Obama would seem incompatible with the startlingly
large number of voters who now believe Obama to be "an
anti-American Muslim."

America's system of two centrist parties worked well
for many years, but any good-spirited American not sickened
by the Republican Party of Karl Rove, Dick Cheney, and
Ken Starr is, simply put, grossly underinformed.

Anyway, here are three facts about recent American politics
on which I'd appreciate comment by "foreigners" (though, frankly,
I'll bet many Americans are unaware of these facts).

(1) Republican candidates were asked if they believed in
Darwin's Theory of Evolution and three of them appealed
to the "Republican base" by answering "No."
I'm curious what Europeans thought of this.

(2) Paul Gregory House has finally been released after
waiting 22 years on death row to be executed. (He still
awaits retrial). It is generally believed he did not
commit the rape/murder he was convicted of 22 years ago.
(DNA tests, not available at the original trial, match
semen to the husband, who has bragged to his friends
about committing the murder.) For the me, the most startling
fact in House's long wait for freedom is the following:

In 2004, the full U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled on
House's request for a retrial: one judge voted to grant the
new trial, six voted to free him immediately on grounds of
"actual innocence"; eight reaffirmed the death sentence.

Now the "punchline":

The eight judges who reaffirmed the death sentence were *all*
appointed by Republican Presidents. The other seven voting
for release or retrial were *all* appointed by Democrat
Presidents.

Republicans and the judges they appoint are the "guardians
of American values." Capital punishment is a "value" so
nobly American that it subsumes any question of guilt or
innocence.

(3) In 1993, the U.S. House of Representatives passed Bill
Clinton's U.S. Government budget by a vote of 218 to 217.
Not a single Republican Congressman voted for the bill.
The bill was delivered to the U.S. Senate where the vote
was 50 to 50. Not a single Republican Senator voted for
the bill. Albert A. Gore, Jr. ascended the dais in the
Chamber to exercise his Constitutional tie-breaking duty;
and William Jefferson Clinton signed the 1993 Budget into law.

Newt Gingrich and his fellow cynic-clowns appeared on
TV, and announced that all the blame for this "disastrous"
budget was to fall squarely on the Democrat's heads.
The Republican Party denied *all* responsibility for
the results of this Budget.

The 1993 Budget ushered in the greatest era of employment
and prosperity in American history. Government debt and
deficit had been considered a major problem; by the end of
the Clinton Administration, right-wingers led by Greenspan
were complaining that the budget *surplus* was an emerging
problem(!) -- financial contracts tied to the yield on
the U.S. Treasury "long bond" would be unenforceable if
the Treasury no longer needed to sell bonds! (That was just
eight years ago, look what the "fiscally prudent" Republicans
have since accomplished!)


The present Republican Party is despicable, cynical and corrupt,
to an extent unprecedented in American history. Anyone who
denies this is, simply put, very badly deluded.

Hope this helps,
James Dow Allen

.