Chad on eBay

From: Lawrence Walker <>
Date: Mon Dec 11 10:57:25 2000

> At 05:13 PM 12/10/00 -0500, Larry wrote:
> >
> >
> >> LOL! I'd heard that it cost the Democrats an average of $30 per
> >> vote so the price sounds about right.
> >>
> >> Joe
> >>
> >> At 07:08 PM 12/9/00 -0600, you wrote:
> >> >
> >> >Florida ballot Hollerith card chad is going for $20-40 +$3-7 S/H
> >> >on eBay. In some cases, the *single* chad is behind glass in its
> >> >own 8x10 frame.
> >> >
> >> >- John
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> > BRRAAP. As a foreign observer who like most look on in horror at
> >a win by another Bush Republican Yahoo and who usually avoid
> >political comment with denizens of the Excited States (among the most
> >naive voters in the world) I can only suggest that the Republican
> >campaign was equally well funded.
> That's very true. In fact, the Republicans are usually better
> funded
> since they are typically pro big business and they get MASSIVE
> contributions from them. But my previous comment was about the price
> of chad and how much the Democrats spend per vote and I never made any
> observation about how much the two partys spent relative to each
> other. EVERYONE in this country realizes that if the situation was
> reversed (the Democrats slightly ahead and the Republicans behind)
> then the Republicans would be doing that same sort of things to change
> the outcome.
> "Excited States"? Hmmm. You obviously believe everything that you
> see on
> the TV news. With very few exceptions, the news people are the only
> ones excited. For 99.99% of the country it's business as usual. I
> should say that most of the people on this list are from the "Excited
> States". Have you noticed any decrease in traffic here since the
> recent elections? I haven't.
> Both are corporate
> >creatures, just different flavors.
> True again. My opinion of the Democrats and Republicans are that
> they
> are like the two sides of the same coind. They're more alike than
> different. If you want different then look at the Green's party or
> some of the other third partys.
> Let's restrict political commentary
> >to political newsgroups or lists so I don't always have to bite my
> >tongue and avoid retching. What goes over with the "good ol' boys in
> >Texas or Louisiana" can be laughable or offensive internationally.
> You can be sure that we view many foreign political events and
> elections the same way. The LOONNGG running treat of Quebec to succeed
> from Canada is a good example. My comment on that one is to be
> carefull what you wish for, it may come true!
> In the mean time, lighten up! Both the previous messages were meant
> to
> be humerous and not serious political commentary!
> Joe
> (just for the record, I didn't vote for either of them. I voted for
> one
> of the third party candidates.)
 My apologies Joe. I thought this was political commentary which
from time-to-time has reared it's contentious head, sometimes in
the form of bad humour. And yes the complex Quebec situation is
bewildering and not only to non-Canadians.
  Knee-jerk reaction. You can't watch TV without something coming
up about the US election.

ciao larry

Reply to:
Received on Mon Dec 11 2000 - 10:57:25 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Fri Oct 10 2014 - 23:32:49 BST