One thing - one of so very many things - I learned in my five years of
flying is that partisan politics does not fit into the cockpit. Most of my
flight instructors have, I know, been to the right of me politically. I had
a most enjoyable flight with CJ - although he has since earned my undying
enmity by unapologetically using the term "Final Solution" in connection
with me and people like me, an astonishing thought coming from an avowedly
religious man, but telling and apt.

But now it seems the nation has, albeit by a slim margin, re-elected a weak,
hypocritical, murderous coward. Three years ago, when some writers on the
left started talking about fascism, I thought that an absurd stretch. No
longer. The parallels are not precise - they never are - but the broad sweep
and many of the components of a new fascist state are in place. The 48% who
didn't vote for this disaster keep knocking on my consciousness, but they
are now feeble and impotent. The thugs are in charge.

That being so, and despite what should be an apolitical setting, I can no
longer in good faith keep company with a group of which the majority, I
know, has elected to deliver the country I love, and chose as my home, into
the hands of Bush and his repressive, regressive masters.

So long. Thanks for all the conversations. You guys have made me a better
pilot.

-- David Brooks

Bye.


"David Brooks" > wrote in message
...
> One thing - one of so very many things - I learned in my five years of
> flying is that partisan politics does not fit into the cockpit. Most of my
> flight instructors have, I know, been to the right of me politically. I
> had
> a most enjoyable flight with CJ - although he has since earned my undying
> enmity by unapologetically using the term "Final Solution" in connection
> with me and people like me, an astonishing thought coming from an avowedly
> religious man, but telling and apt.
>
> But now it seems the nation has, albeit by a slim margin, re-elected a
> weak,
> hypocritical, murderous coward. Three years ago, when some writers on the
> left started talking about fascism, I thought that an absurd stretch. No
> longer. The parallels are not precise - they never are - but the broad
> sweep
> and many of the components of a new fascist state are in place. The 48%
> who
> didn't vote for this disaster keep knocking on my consciousness, but they
> are now feeble and impotent. The thugs are in charge.
>
> That being so, and despite what should be an apolitical setting, I can no
> longer in good faith keep company with a group of which the majority, I
> know, has elected to deliver the country I love, and chose as my home,
> into
> the hands of Bush and his repressive, regressive masters.
>
> So long. Thanks for all the conversations. You guys have made me a better
> pilot.
>
> -- David Brooks
>
>

If you step back you will find that not much has changed. The republicans
gained ground in a senate that they already controlled but still lack the 60
votes needed to put anything radical through. They also continue to control
the house and presidency just like yesterday. The democrats maneuvered
themselves out of the running by incorporating ideas into their platform
(gay marrige) that did not gain them a single vote but cost them many. They
fronted a candidate that came across as arogant and spoiled. They will
figure out these errors and try to correct them. In two years there will be
another election for the house and some senate seats which will preclude the
republicans from doing anything to wild.

It is unfortunate when either side controls all three levers but it has
happened before and we will get through this time too.

Mike
MU-2


"David Brooks" > wrote in message
...
> One thing - one of so very many things - I learned in my five years of
> flying is that partisan politics does not fit into the cockpit. Most of my
> flight instructors have, I know, been to the right of me politically. I
> had
> a most enjoyable flight with CJ - although he has since earned my undying
> enmity by unapologetically using the term "Final Solution" in connection
> with me and people like me, an astonishing thought coming from an avowedly
> religious man, but telling and apt.
>
> But now it seems the nation has, albeit by a slim margin, re-elected a
> weak,
> hypocritical, murderous coward. Three years ago, when some writers on the
> left started talking about fascism, I thought that an absurd stretch. No
> longer. The parallels are not precise - they never are - but the broad
> sweep
> and many of the components of a new fascist state are in place. The 48%
> who
> didn't vote for this disaster keep knocking on my consciousness, but they
> are now feeble and impotent. The thugs are in charge.
>
> That being so, and despite what should be an apolitical setting, I can no
> longer in good faith keep company with a group of which the majority, I
> know, has elected to deliver the country I love, and chose as my home,
> into
> the hands of Bush and his repressive, regressive masters.
>
> So long. Thanks for all the conversations. You guys have made me a better
> pilot.
>
> -- David Brooks
>
>

"David Brooks" > wrote in message
> One thing - one of so very many things - I learned in my five years of
> flying is that partisan politics does not fit into the cockpit.

Well, for those that can't mix the two, that is. There are those rare folks
that are so set in their ways that there is no possible means of even
agreeing to disagree. I feel for those kinda people.

Some folks can chew cornbread and walk at the same time. Some can dip a
wing and still fly straight. Some can pat their head and rub their tummy at
the same time. I swear - I've seen all of this done!

Most folks can even have an occasional off-topic political conversation with
cyber-friends and remain friends.

And some . . . Can't do any of those. I hate it, David, but it's your loss,
bub.

--
Jim Fisher

Mike Rapoport wrote:
They will
> figure out these errors and try to correct them.

I doubt it. Substitute Kerry for Gore. Same result. The country just
doesn't believe the same things Kerry does. Look at the 11 states that
had gay marriage on the ballot. All 11 passed and it wasn't even close,
double digits in most states. One state not only passed that but
eliminated civil unions.

See ya.

Perhaps France will serve you better.


"David Brooks" > wrote in message
...
> One thing - one of so very many things - I learned in my five years of
> flying is that partisan politics does not fit into the cockpit. Most of my
> flight instructors have, I know, been to the right of me politically. I
> had
> a most enjoyable flight with CJ - although he has since earned my undying
> enmity by unapologetically using the term "Final Solution" in connection
> with me and people like me, an astonishing thought coming from an avowedly
> religious man, but telling and apt.
>
> But now it seems the nation has, albeit by a slim margin, re-elected a
> weak,
> hypocritical, murderous coward. Three years ago, when some writers on the
> left started talking about fascism, I thought that an absurd stretch. No
> longer. The parallels are not precise - they never are - but the broad
> sweep
> and many of the components of a new fascist state are in place. The 48%
> who
> didn't vote for this disaster keep knocking on my consciousness, but they
> are now feeble and impotent. The thugs are in charge.
>
> That being so, and despite what should be an apolitical setting, I can no
> longer in good faith keep company with a group of which the majority, I
> know, has elected to deliver the country I love, and chose as my home,
> into
> the hands of Bush and his repressive, regressive masters.
>
> So long. Thanks for all the conversations. You guys have made me a better
> pilot.
>
> -- David Brooks
>
>

Oh puhleeze.... spare us the piety. Now that "the nation has, albeit by a
slim margin, re-elected a weak, hypocritical, murderous coward" you are gonna
take your toys and go home.

Well good riddance. America was built by human beings of far stronger
character than you. Don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out.

David Brooks wrote:

> One thing - one of so very many things - I learned in my five years of
> flying is that partisan politics does not fit into the cockpit. Most of my
> flight instructors have, I know, been to the right of me politically. I had
> a most enjoyable flight with CJ - although he has since earned my undying
> enmity by unapologetically using the term "Final Solution" in connection
> with me and people like me, an astonishing thought coming from an avowedly
> religious man, but telling and apt.
>
> But now it seems the nation has, albeit by a slim margin, re-elected a weak,
> hypocritical, murderous coward. Three years ago, when some writers on the
> left started talking about fascism, I thought that an absurd stretch. No
> longer. The parallels are not precise - they never are - but the broad sweep
> and many of the components of a new fascist state are in place. The 48% who
> didn't vote for this disaster keep knocking on my consciousness, but they
> are now feeble and impotent. The thugs are in charge.
>
> That being so, and despite what should be an apolitical setting, I can no
> longer in good faith keep company with a group of which the majority, I
> know, has elected to deliver the country I love, and chose as my home, into
> the hands of Bush and his repressive, regressive masters.
>
> So long. Thanks for all the conversations. You guys have made me a better
> pilot.
>
> -- David Brooks
>
>

Don't let the door hit you in the butt on your way out.

"David Brooks" > wrote in message
...

[whining snipped]

David Brooks wrote:

> One thing - one of so very many things - I learned in my five years of
> flying is that partisan politics does not fit into the cockpit.
<snip>
>
> That being so, and despite what should be an apolitical setting, I can no
> longer in good faith keep company with a group of which the majority, I
> know, has elected to deliver the country I love, and chose as my home, into
> the hands of Bush and his repressive, regressive masters.

So, politics does not fit in the cockpit. Ok, I'll buy that. So you're
upset about the election results. Ok, I'll buy that too. But...since
you "know" all of us voted for Bush, you're packing up your marbles and
going home? It took you that long to get fed up with the ton of
unnecessary political views expressed here to leave? Um...ok, see ya.

--
Jack Allison
PP-ASEL, plan-to-be-IA-Student, flying club member/co-owner wanna-be

"When once you have tasted flight, you will forever walk the Earth
with your eyes turned skyward, for there you have been, and there
you will always long to return"
- Leonardo Da Vinci

(Remove the obvious from address to reply via e-mail)

"David Brooks" > wrote in message
...
>
> That being so, and despite what should be an apolitical setting, I can no
> longer in good faith keep company with a group of which the majority, I
> know, has elected to deliver the country I love, and chose as my home,
into
> the hands of Bush and his repressive, regressive masters.

Get a $&%@!ing helmet, dude.

I'm a pro-life, pro-gun, low-tax Republican living in Boston, Massachusetts
for the past ten years. Most of the people I know don't understand how an
educated, reasonable person like me could vote for "that chimp." One of my
best friends is a hardcore lesbian environmental journalist who went to
Smith, and I've worked on the staff of one of the alternative newspapers up
here. Let's just say that when I went to the Halloween party this year, all
the goths, gays, trannies, and just plain weirdos looked at me like I was
the freak. Well hey, in Cambridge, I am.

These people are mad Kerry didn't run a liberal campaign and can't stand
that he "was just as pro-war as Bush." Given the choice they'd like us to
pull out of Iraq and beg the UN's forgiveness, raise taxes back to 70% on
income over $200k, tax gas at $3/gallon, ban every gun out there, and make
gay sex a part of grade-school curricula. Need I say that I think their
policies would devastate this country just as terribly as you think W's
policies will?

Still, I've managed to become and remain friends with quite a few of these
people because I realize that they're not actually bad people, just
misguided. Naturally they feel the same about me. Some of them I'm happy to
have long debates with over vast quantities of alcohol, others I only talk
about other topics with. Life goes on and is richer for the company of
people who think differently than I do.

51% of this country did not vote for fascism, they voted for George W. Bush.
There's a difference if you care to see it.

-cwk.

It is a sad day but it will look better tomorrow. And some of us try to
keep to the forum topic most of the time.

Welcome to feeling like a disenfrancised minority. But picking up your
marbles and going home really isn't a viable life strategy - especially over
politics (or sex or race).

Get a good night's sleep or 5 and hope to see you again.

"David Brooks" > wrote in message
...
> One thing - one of so very many things - I learned in my five years of
> flying is that partisan politics does not fit into the cockpit. Most of my
> flight instructors have, I know, been to the right of me politically. I
had
> a most enjoyable flight with CJ - although he has since earned my undying
> enmity by unapologetically using the term "Final Solution" in connection
> with me and people like me, an astonishing thought coming from an avowedly
> religious man, but telling and apt.
>
> But now it seems the nation has, albeit by a slim margin, re-elected a
weak,
> hypocritical, murderous coward. Three years ago, when some writers on the
> left started talking about fascism, I thought that an absurd stretch. No
> longer. The parallels are not precise - they never are - but the broad
sweep
> and many of the components of a new fascist state are in place. The 48%
who
> didn't vote for this disaster keep knocking on my consciousness, but they
> are now feeble and impotent. The thugs are in charge.
>
> That being so, and despite what should be an apolitical setting, I can no
> longer in good faith keep company with a group of which the majority, I
> know, has elected to deliver the country I love, and chose as my home,
into
> the hands of Bush and his repressive, regressive masters.
>
> So long. Thanks for all the conversations. You guys have made me a better
> pilot.
>
> -- David Brooks
>
>

> Still, I've managed to become and remain friends with quite a few of these
> people because I realize that they're not actually bad people, just
> misguided. Naturally they feel the same about me. Some of them I'm happy
> to
> have long debates with over vast quantities of alcohol, others I only talk
> about other topics with. Life goes on and is richer for the company of
> people who think differently than I do.

Precisely. Well said.

Our best friends are both liberal Democrats. We watched the election
results together last night, much like watching Monday Night Football. We
had the same snacks, the same drinks -- and the same cheering and booing.

For David to take this kind of thing so seriously that he's "leaving the
community" is bizarre to the point of absurdity.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

> These people are mad Kerry didn't run a liberal campaign and can't stand
> that he "was just as pro-war as Bush."

That is SO ironic.

If the Democrats has nominated a middle-of-the-road guy to run against
Bush -- say, Dick Gephardt -- this election would not have even been close.
The Democrats would have swept the nation, and never by less than 25
percentage points.

Stupidly, they nominated a guy whose political positions were to the left of
Ted Kennedy's, absolutely ensuring a Bush victory.

There were many traditional Republicans out here -- myself included -- who
would have voted for a conservative Democrat in this election. But there
was just no way for any of us to vote for a guy like Kerry.

The moral for the Democrats: Don't ever nominate an ultra liberal to run
for president again.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

"David Brooks" > wrote in message
...

<snip>

> But now it seems the nation has, albeit by a slim margin, re-elected a
weak,
> hypocritical, murderous coward.

<snip>

Hey! You must have been misinformed!! Kerry lost!

Go home cry baby...


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.788 / Virus Database: 533 - Release Date: 11/1/2004

Good riddance, hope you enjoy France.



"David Brooks" > wrote in message
...
> One thing - one of so very many things - I learned in my five years of
> flying is that partisan politics does not fit into the cockpit. Most of my
> flight instructors have, I know, been to the right of me politically. I
> had
> a most enjoyable flight with CJ - although he has since earned my undying
> enmity by unapologetically using the term "Final Solution" in connection
> with me and people like me, an astonishing thought coming from an avowedly
> religious man, but telling and apt.
>
> But now it seems the nation has, albeit by a slim margin, re-elected a
> weak,
> hypocritical, murderous coward. Three years ago, when some writers on the
> left started talking about fascism, I thought that an absurd stretch. No
> longer. The parallels are not precise - they never are - but the broad
> sweep
> and many of the components of a new fascist state are in place. The 48%
> who
> didn't vote for this disaster keep knocking on my consciousness, but they
> are now feeble and impotent. The thugs are in charge.
>
> That being so, and despite what should be an apolitical setting, I can no
> longer in good faith keep company with a group of which the majority, I
> know, has elected to deliver the country I love, and chose as my home,
> into
> the hands of Bush and his repressive, regressive masters.
>
> So long. Thanks for all the conversations. You guys have made me a better
> pilot.
>
> -- David Brooks
>
>

>
See you in four ytears from now...
And we 'll see your ass...

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:k_bid.351511$MQ5.252777@attbi_s52...
> > These people are mad Kerry didn't run a liberal campaign and can't stand
> > that he "was just as pro-war as Bush."
>
> The moral for the Democrats: Don't ever nominate an ultra liberal to run
> for president again.

Hillary Clinton.

With Barack Obama for VP, of course. Too soon for him to run for Prez. but
he's going to get there sooner or later unless he has an intern problem.

2008 will be a slugfest extraordinaire. First in 50 years that you'll have a
completely open race with neither an incumbent nor VP on either ticket.

My dream team is Giuliani-Rice. Not likely to happen but the Red Sox weren't
supposed to beat the Yankees after being down 0-3 either. That team could
put nearly the entire country in play.

-cwk.

"David Brooks" > wrote in message
...
> One thing - one of so very many things - I learned in my five years of
> flying is that partisan politics does not fit into the cockpit.

<snip>

You have to be one of the most intolerant people I have ever heard of. So
you can't hang around people who are (according to your assumptions)
different than you? I used to think that Democrats were the type of people
who were accepting of others, but I have seen over the last few years that
they are not. I am a Democrat, but I voted for Bush. He's not perfect, but
at least he's not a hypocrite.

I sincerely hope you are jus mis-speaking out of frustration. If this is
your true character, then good riddance.

-Trent
PP-ASEL

As a flight instructor, I have learned to understand and put up with the
personal politics of just about anyone. That is, after all, their right. I
can politely and quietly listen to unending and asinine arguments made at
nauseam by self important, conceited, myopic, hypocrites who's views I
personally disagree with vehemently.

One thing that I will not listen to, acknowledge, or put up with, even from
my own children, is WHINING!

Taxi to the ramp, I'm letting you out. PLONK!

has been added to your blocked senders
list.





---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.782 / Virus Database: 528 - Release Date: 10/22/2004

A little cheese with that whine, my dear?

-0-
"David Brooks" > wrote in message
...
>
> But now it seems the nation has, albeit by a slim margin, re-elected a
> weak,
> hypocritical, murderous coward.

Why wait four "ytears"... you can take a good look at my ass today if you like.

Nemo l'Ancien wrote:

>
>>
> See you in four ytears from now...
> And we 'll see your ass...

Jim Burns ) wrote:

> Taxi to the ramp, I'm letting you out. PLONK!

Someone's getting a pink slip, no doubt.

--
Peter

Trent Moorehead wrote:
>.... I used to think that Democrats were the type of people
> who were accepting of others, but I have seen over the last few years that
> they are not. I am a Democrat, but I voted for Bush. He's not perfect, but
> at least he's not a hypocrite.

The liberal democrats I have direct experience with always boast that they
are so tolerant and so pro-choice. This only applies to choice in abortions
however, and they do NOT approve of choice when it comes to the following:

1) choice in whether or not someone desirec to own firearms (they are against that)
2) choice in education... they are against anything other than mandatory public schools
3) choice in placing your FICA taxes into anything other than the social [in]security
4) choice in health care... they ultimately want the government in charge of all health
care options.

I could mention more but what stir up the natives.

I absolutely agree with you, Jay. Yet again, I had to vote AGAINST a
candidate, rather than FOR one. I just thought Kerry was the least-bad
candidate. When Bush opens his mouth, or just looks at the camera, for that
matter, the back of my hair goes up. What thinking individual could vote
FOR this idiot. I guess my version of the least-bad candidate was the same
as only 49.9% of the rest of the country.

Apparently you can fool 50% of the people, but there is always a noise
function.

--
Bob (Chief Pilot, White Knuckle Airways)

I don't have to like Bush and Cheney (Or Kerry, for that matter) to love
America

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:k_bid.351511$MQ5.252777@attbi_s52...
> > These people are mad Kerry didn't run a liberal campaign and can't stand
> > that he "was just as pro-war as Bush."
>
> That is SO ironic.
>
> If the Democrats has nominated a middle-of-the-road guy to run against
> Bush -- say, Dick Gephardt -- this election would not have even been
close.
> The Democrats would have swept the nation, and never by less than 25
> percentage points.
>
> Stupidly, they nominated a guy whose political positions were to the left
of
> Ted Kennedy's, absolutely ensuring a Bush victory.
>
> There were many traditional Republicans out here -- myself included -- who
> would have voted for a conservative Democrat in this election. But there
> was just no way for any of us to vote for a guy like Kerry.
>
> The moral for the Democrats: Don't ever nominate an ultra liberal to run
> for president again.
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
>
>

"C Kingsbury" > wrote in message
nk.net...
>
> "Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
> news:k_bid.351511$MQ5.252777@attbi_s52...
....snip...
>> The moral for the Democrats: Don't ever nominate an ultra liberal to run
>> for president again.
>
> Hillary Clinton.
>
....snip...
> My dream team is Giuliani-Rice. ...snip...

It would be interesting to see if the (conservative) country is ready for a
Woman in the White House, or even in the position of "heartbeat away".

That's kind of a "liberal" concept, isn't it???...

> Stupidly, they nominated a guy whose political positions were to the left
> of Ted Kennedy's, absolutely ensuring a Bush victory.
>
> There were many traditional Republicans out here -- myself included -- who
> would have voted for a conservative Democrat in this election. But there
> was just no way for any of us to vote for a guy like Kerry.
>
> The moral for the Democrats: Don't ever nominate an ultra liberal to run
> for president again.

I have often wondered how some people come to the conclusions that they do.
Jay,,, for goodness sake you sound like you are a sock-puppet mouthing the
words of his puppeteer (Bush - who was famous for the 'Kerry's just like T.
Kennedy' line). Kerry was far left? How, where? If anything he was as
centrist as Clinton was. You'd think he belonged to the Communist party to
hear the prattle that is coming off of your tongue.

Unlike the man whose words you mouth, Kerry didn't pull special favors to
get into the National Guard to avoid the draft (he VOLUNTEERED for duty),
Kerry was never arrested DUI, nor was he a cocaine user. While our boys
were ducking bullets and embroiled in a hopeless conflict - Bush was having
beer parties with the boys - occasionally remembering to show up for
National Guard duty. Also, I'll bet you never even took the time to watch
the footage of Kerry before the special hearing on Vietnam (which Bush would
refer to often, without even citing a single in-context quote from) when
Kerry spoke most eloquently without political bile of what was wrong with
the Vietnam War and how it was a mistake. He did this AFTER having been
there (something Bush in his petty cowardice, never did). He went there,
saw how things were going and recognized that we (the US) had made a
mistake. There wasn't a single misspoken word in his speech, back then (you
see, unlike you, I took it upon myself to view all the footage of the
hearing - before forming my opinions). Does integrity mean anything to you?

I worry about a country where there are individuals that can be so easily
molded with a political dogma and never bother to question or actively
challenge the ideas that are being presented to them. I've voted for
Democratic candidates, I've voted for Republican,,, you want to know why,
Jay? Because it is the benefit for the country that counts not 'belonging
to a club' and following their 'election charter' like some mindless
automaton.

Your candidate entered a war with an 'enemy' (Saddam) who had not attacked
us while the fellow that directly attacked us is running around, comfortably
making videos and apparently eating well. Bush claimed he was entering the
war to save the people from his cruel tyranny - but what about the massive
genocide that is going on in parts of Africa right now - I haven't heard a
peep from Bush about that, or China's human rights violations, or North
Korea's forming nuclear arsenal ---- Ooops,,,, wait,,,,, I get it
now,,,,,,,, there is no OIL in Africa where innocents are being slaughtered
every day,,, there is no OIL in North Korea.... Isn't it funny,,,, a
president who is against stem cell research (which only the ignorant don't
know) uses embryos and NOT fetuses, has BIG problems with using a frozen
embryo that must be discarded after a certain length of time,,,, BUT he will
NOT hesitate to sacrifice living, breathing, human beings in a war that had
NO business being fought (I'm talking about Iraq here). So, he will put
living human beings (including women and children involved in collateral
damage from bombings that go astray) in body bags,,, but wait! Don't ya
dare touch a frozen embryo in a 'cryogenics' freezer. Can YOU say ,
hypocrisy? God forbid, that you are your loved one needs medical aid that
some new stem cell technology could offer.

If there is any hope for our country, it will be when people learn to
abandon their mindless following of party affiliation and do as I (and
others) do; simply vote for the best man/woman for the job.

But don't let intelligence or logic, pry you away from your blissful
ignorance. I hope one day, people like you will learn to challenge and
learn more about what they are told as fact FROM ANY SOURCE,,, then we will
REALLY have a great Nation.

A mind is truly a terrible thing to waste..........


--
--
=-----
Good Flights!

Cecil
PP-ASEL-IA
Student - CP-ASEL

Check out my personal flying adventures from my first flight to the
checkride AND the continuing adventures beyond!
Complete with pictures and text at: www.bayareapilot.com

"I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things."
- Antoine de Saint-Exupery -

"We who fly, do so for the love of flying. We are alive in the air with
this miracle that lies in our hands and beneath our feet"
- Cecil Day Lewis -

Pitiful.

"David Brooks" > wrote in message
...
> One thing - one of so very many things - I learned in my five years of
> flying is that partisan politics does not fit into the cockpit. Most of my
> flight instructors have, I know, been to the right of me politically. I
> had
> a most enjoyable flight with CJ - although he has since earned my undying
> enmity by unapologetically using the term "Final Solution" in connection
> with me and people like me, an astonishing thought coming from an avowedly
> religious man, but telling and apt.
>
> But now it seems the nation has, albeit by a slim margin, re-elected a
> weak,
> hypocritical, murderous coward. Three years ago, when some writers on the
> left started talking about fascism, I thought that an absurd stretch. No
> longer. The parallels are not precise - they never are - but the broad
> sweep
> and many of the components of a new fascist state are in place. The 48%
> who
> didn't vote for this disaster keep knocking on my consciousness, but they
> are now feeble and impotent. The thugs are in charge.
>
> That being so, and despite what should be an apolitical setting, I can no
> longer in good faith keep company with a group of which the majority, I
> know, has elected to deliver the country I love, and chose as my home,
> into
> the hands of Bush and his repressive, regressive masters.
>
> So long. Thanks for all the conversations. You guys have made me a better
> pilot.
>
> -- David Brooks
>
>

"David Brooks" > wrote in message
...

> That being so, and despite what should be an apolitical setting, I can no
> longer in good faith keep company with a group of which the majority, I
> know, has elected to deliver the country I love, and chose as my home,
into
> the hands of Bush and his repressive, regressive masters.


With all due respect, this is the easy way out. Stick with it and it`ll
seem a bit better tomorrow and a bit better the next day. Time will heal
your pain.

I know what you are saying, but quitting is the cowardly thing to do. Stay
here. Voice and defend your opinions. Many more may believe as you do,
many may not. The point is that in life, you have to participate, no matter
how ugly. Standing on the sidelines and bitching about the quarterback is
no way to live a fulfilling and productive life. Come back soon. You will
always be welcomed.

Tien

Trent Moorehead wrote:

I used to think that Democrats were the type of people
> who were accepting of others,

They haven't been that for at least 50 years.

David -- The virtual door is always open when/if you choose to come back.

Best.

Bob Clough


"David Brooks" > wrote in message
...
> One thing - one of so very many things - I learned in my five years of
> flying is that partisan politics does not fit into the cockpit. Most of my
> flight instructors have, I know, been to the right of me politically. I
had
> a most enjoyable flight with CJ - although he has since earned my undying
> enmity by unapologetically using the term "Final Solution" in connection
> with me and people like me, an astonishing thought coming from an avowedly
> religious man, but telling and apt.
>
> But now it seems the nation has, albeit by a slim margin, re-elected a
weak,
> hypocritical, murderous coward. Three years ago, when some writers on the
> left started talking about fascism, I thought that an absurd stretch. No
> longer. The parallels are not precise - they never are - but the broad
sweep
> and many of the components of a new fascist state are in place. The 48%
who
> didn't vote for this disaster keep knocking on my consciousness, but they
> are now feeble and impotent. The thugs are in charge.
>
> That being so, and despite what should be an apolitical setting, I can no
> longer in good faith keep company with a group of which the majority, I
> know, has elected to deliver the country I love, and chose as my home,
into
> the hands of Bush and his repressive, regressive masters.
>
> So long. Thanks for all the conversations. You guys have made me a better
> pilot.
>
> -- David Brooks
>
>

> But don't let intelligence or logic, pry you away from your blissful
> ignorance. I hope one day, people like you will learn to challenge and
> learn more about what they are told as fact FROM ANY SOURCE,,, then we
> will REALLY have a great Nation.
>
> A mind is truly a terrible thing to waste..........

Sorry, Cecil -- I called it as I saw it. I just couldn't vote for Kerry.

And yes, I did watch ALL of the video-taped hearings, just like you.

Let me add the obvious, incendiary words that I was diplomatically trying to
avoid using: The Democrats would own the White House right now, TODAY, if
they had nominated a centrist who didn't back-stab his compatriots during
wartime. Everything else Kerry's done, before or since, pales to
insignificance in the shadow of that action.

It's got to really suck to be Dick Gephardt today, knowing this fact.
Gephardt's no dummy, and now he's too old to run again -- but I'm sure he
knows in his heart that the White House was his for the taking -- if only
his party had given him the chance.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

David Brooks wrote:

> One thing - one of so very many things - I learned in my five years of
> flying is that partisan politics does not fit into the cockpit. Most of my
> flight instructors have, I know, been to the right of me politically. I had
> a most enjoyable flight with CJ - although he has since earned my undying
> enmity by unapologetically using the term "Final Solution" in connection
> with me and people like me, an astonishing thought coming from an avowedly
> religious man, but telling and apt.

What prompted this outburst?


> But now it seems the nation has, albeit by a slim margin, re-elected a weak,
> hypocritical, murderous coward. Three years ago, when some writers on the
> left started talking about fascism, I thought that an absurd stretch. No
> longer. The parallels are not precise - they never are - but the broad sweep
> and many of the components of a new fascist state are in place. The 48% who
> didn't vote for this disaster keep knocking on my consciousness, but they
> are now feeble and impotent. The thugs are in charge.
>
> That being so, and despite what should be an apolitical setting, I can no
> longer in good faith keep company with a group of which the majority, I
> know, has elected to deliver the country I love, and chose as my home, into
> the hands of Bush and his repressive, regressive masters.
>
> So long. Thanks for all the conversations. You guys have made me a better
> pilot.

What was that comment about being a coward?


Matt

Cecil Chapman wrote:

Kerry was far left? How, where?

You can't be serious. Guns, gay marriage, taxes, the UN. His positions
are far left. You may not agree but they are.

Newps wrote:

>
>
> Mike Rapoport wrote:
> They will
>
>> figure out these errors and try to correct them.
>
>
> I doubt it. Substitute Kerry for Gore. Same result. The country just
> doesn't believe the same things Kerry does. Look at the 11 states that
> had gay marriage on the ballot. All 11 passed and it wasn't even close,
> double digits in most states. One state not only passed that but
> eliminated civil unions.

I'm thinking of moving to a state like yours (SD, right?). I've lived
in PA all my life, but it is becoming such a liberal cesspool that I may
have to retire elsewehere. The good thing is that I live in the
northcentral part that still has a grasp on morality and decency, but we
are outnumbered by Philly and Pitt so the overall state vote is a disaster.


Matt

Jay Honeck wrote:


>
> It's got to really suck to be Dick Gephardt today, knowing this fact.
> Gephardt's no dummy, and now he's too old to run again -- but I'm sure he
> knows in his heart that the White House was his for the taking -- if only
> his party had given him the chance.

Gephardt isn't the one. You want a centrist Dem, you pick Lieberman.

C Kingsbury wrote:

> My dream team is Giuliani-Rice. Not likely to happen but the Red Sox weren't
> supposed to beat the Yankees after being down 0-3 either. That team could
> put nearly the entire country in play.

Mine is Giuliani-Powell. Nothing against Rice, but I've been impressed
with Powell since he first came on the scene in Desert Storm.


Matt

Cecil Chapman wrote:

>>Stupidly, they nominated a guy whose political positions were to the left
>>of Ted Kennedy's, absolutely ensuring a Bush victory.
>>
>>There were many traditional Republicans out here -- myself included -- who
>>would have voted for a conservative Democrat in this election. But there
>>was just no way for any of us to vote for a guy like Kerry.
>>
>>The moral for the Democrats: Don't ever nominate an ultra liberal to run
>>for president again.
>
>
> I have often wondered how some people come to the conclusions that they do.
> Jay,,, for goodness sake you sound like you are a sock-puppet mouthing the
> words of his puppeteer (Bush - who was famous for the 'Kerry's just like T.
> Kennedy' line). Kerry was far left? How, where? If anything he was as
> centrist as Clinton was. You'd think he belonged to the Communist party to
> hear the prattle that is coming off of your tongue.

So your definition of puppet is anyone who disagrees with you? He is
far left by almost any definition of the word. Pro nanny state and anti
individual rights.


> Unlike the man whose words you mouth, Kerry didn't pull special favors to
> get into the National Guard to avoid the draft (he VOLUNTEERED for duty),
> Kerry was never arrested DUI, nor was he a cocaine user. While our boys
> were ducking bullets and embroiled in a hopeless conflict - Bush was having
> beer parties with the boys - occasionally remembering to show up for
> National Guard duty. Also, I'll bet you never even took the time to watch
> the footage of Kerry before the special hearing on Vietnam (which Bush would
> refer to often, without even citing a single in-context quote from) when
> Kerry spoke most eloquently without political bile of what was wrong with
> the Vietnam War and how it was a mistake. He did this AFTER having been
> there (something Bush in his petty cowardice, never did). He went there,
> saw how things were going and recognized that we (the US) had made a
> mistake. There wasn't a single misspoken word in his speech, back then (you
> see, unlike you, I took it upon myself to view all the footage of the
> hearing - before forming my opinions). Does integrity mean anything to you?

That's right. He volunteered for duty, took a camera to film himself,
scratched his arm to get back to the states where he could use his film
for political gain. Kind of like Michael Moore with a little more
subterfuge.


> I worry about a country where there are individuals that can be so easily
> molded with a political dogma and never bother to question or actively
> challenge the ideas that are being presented to them. I've voted for
> Democratic candidates, I've voted for Republican,,, you want to know why,
> Jay? Because it is the benefit for the country that counts not 'belonging
> to a club' and following their 'election charter' like some mindless
> automaton.

Me too, but Jay never said that he did that.


> Your candidate entered a war with an 'enemy' (Saddam) who had not attacked
> us while the fellow that directly attacked us is running around, comfortably
> making videos and apparently eating well. Bush claimed he was entering the
> war to save the people from his cruel tyranny - but what about the massive
> genocide that is going on in parts of Africa right now - I haven't heard a
> peep from Bush about that, or China's human rights violations, or North
> Korea's forming nuclear arsenal ---- Ooops,,,, wait,,,,, I get it
> now,,,,,,,, there is no OIL in Africa where innocents are being slaughtered
> every day,,, there is no OIL in North Korea.... Isn't it funny,,,, a
> president who is against stem cell research (which only the ignorant don't
> know) uses embryos and NOT fetuses, has BIG problems with using a frozen
> embryo that must be discarded after a certain length of time,,,, BUT he will
> NOT hesitate to sacrifice living, breathing, human beings in a war that had
> NO business being fought (I'm talking about Iraq here). So, he will put
> living human beings (including women and children involved in collateral
> damage from bombings that go astray) in body bags,,, but wait! Don't ya
> dare touch a frozen embryo in a 'cryogenics' freezer. Can YOU say ,
> hypocrisy? God forbid, that you are your loved one needs medical aid that
> some new stem cell technology could offer.

I tend to agree that we went into Iraq too soon, but then I don't know
what Bush knew or at least thought he knew. I'm amazed that people
think they they know everything the President knows. We won't know for
40 years what REALLY prompted the invasion.


> If there is any hope for our country, it will be when people learn to
> abandon their mindless following of party affiliation and do as I (and
> others) do; simply vote for the best man/woman for the job.

I agree. Bush was clearly the best candidate of those from which we had
to choose. It didn't even require much brain power to figure that out.


> But don't let intelligence or logic, pry you away from your blissful
> ignorance. I hope one day, people like you will learn to challenge and
> learn more about what they are told as fact FROM ANY SOURCE,,, then we will
> REALLY have a great Nation.

Oh, so know disagreeing with you means one is ignorant rather than a
puppet. You are starting to sound like Kerry.


> A mind is truly a terrible thing to waste..........

Yes, I feel truly sorry for what remains of yours.... :-)

Matt

Jay Honeck wrote:

>>But don't let intelligence or logic, pry you away from your blissful
>>ignorance. I hope one day, people like you will learn to challenge and
>>learn more about what they are told as fact FROM ANY SOURCE,,, then we
>>will REALLY have a great Nation.
>>
>>A mind is truly a terrible thing to waste..........
>
>
> Sorry, Cecil -- I called it as I saw it. I just couldn't vote for Kerry.
>
> And yes, I did watch ALL of the video-taped hearings, just like you.
>
> Let me add the obvious, incendiary words that I was diplomatically trying to
> avoid using: The Democrats would own the White House right now, TODAY, if
> they had nominated a centrist who didn't back-stab his compatriots during
> wartime. Everything else Kerry's done, before or since, pales to
> insignificance in the shadow of that action.
>
> It's got to really suck to be Dick Gephardt today, knowing this fact.
> Gephardt's no dummy, and now he's too old to run again -- but I'm sure he
> knows in his heart that the White House was his for the taking -- if only
> his party had given him the chance.

And even Edwards probably could have won ... being a lawyer
notwithstanding! :-)

I agree that Kerry was simply a bad choice by the Democrats. They had
other choices that could likely have won.

Matt

So sorry to hear that. Let us know how socialism/communism works out for
you. It did wonders for China, Cuba and CCCP.


"David Brooks" > wrote in message
...
> One thing - one of so very many things - I learned in my five years of
> flying is that partisan politics does not fit into the cockpit. Most of my
> flight instructors have, I know, been to the right of me politically. I
> had
> a most enjoyable flight with CJ - although he has since earned my undying
> enmity by unapologetically using the term "Final Solution" in connection
> with me and people like me, an astonishing thought coming from an avowedly
> religious man, but telling and apt.
>
> But now it seems the nation has, albeit by a slim margin, re-elected a
> weak,
> hypocritical, murderous coward. Three years ago, when some writers on the
> left started talking about fascism, I thought that an absurd stretch. No
> longer. The parallels are not precise - they never are - but the broad
> sweep
> and many of the components of a new fascist state are in place. The 48%
> who
> didn't vote for this disaster keep knocking on my consciousness, but they
> are now feeble and impotent. The thugs are in charge.
>
> That being so, and despite what should be an apolitical setting, I can no
> longer in good faith keep company with a group of which the majority, I
> know, has elected to deliver the country I love, and chose as my home,
> into
> the hands of Bush and his repressive, regressive masters.
>
> So long. Thanks for all the conversations. You guys have made me a better
> pilot.
>
> -- David Brooks
>
>

Matt Whiting > wrote:
>C Kingsbury wrote:
>
>> My dream team is Giuliani-Rice. Not likely to happen but the Red Sox weren't
>> supposed to beat the Yankees after being down 0-3 either. That team could
>> put nearly the entire country in play.
>
>Mine is Giuliani-Powell. Nothing against Rice, but I've been impressed
>with Powell since he first came on the scene in Desert Storm.

Rice has never had an elected position, so I'm rather apprehensive
about that. As for Powell -- very unlikely as his family is very
much against it, and he's stated it.

On the other hand, if Rehnquist resigns, Sandra Day O'Connor is next
in line for Chief Justice of the Supremes! But as one pundit said today,
she's already got huge power as the swing vote all the time.

Mike Rapoport wrote:
>
> In two years there will be
> another election for the house and some senate seats which will preclude the
> republicans from doing anything to wild.

NPR said today that Bush made a remark about quacking after that election.

George Patterson
If a man gets into a fight 3,000 miles away from home, he *had* to have
been looking for it.

"David Brooks" wrote:
> That being so, and despite what should be an apolitical setting, I can
> no
> longer in good faith keep company with a group of which the majority,
> I
> know, has elected to deliver the country I love, and chose as my home,
> into
> the hands of Bush and his repressive, regressive masters.
>
> So long. Thanks for all the conversations. You guys have made me a
> better
> pilot.

Aww take it easy, David. I'm appalled that my fellow citizens would
re-elect Bush but, still, some of my best friends are Republicans.
Hell, my business partner is just a hair to the right of Gengis Khan.

Sometimes the hyperbole gets a little too far over the top -- C J is
certainly a prime practitioner of the art -- but don't let it a little
obnoxious bluster run you off.

We can't give up on the idea that America is a nation where people
respect and love one another in spite of diverse political views. If we
do that we are truly lost.

--
Dan

"How can an idiot be a policeman? Answer me that!"
- Chief Inspector Dreyfus

Ya know. I think David actually left. Not a bad troll through muddy waters
however.

IMO the election was a contest between the people pulling the wagon and the
people riding in the wagon. Luckily 51% of the people were pulling the wagon
so it will probably keep moving (perfect wagon with no losses to friction
etc.). Once 51% or greater are riding in the wagon then it will only move
downhill.

Howard


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.788 / Virus Database: 533 - Release Date: 11/1/2004

Matt Whiting wrote:

>
>
> I'm thinking of moving to a state like yours (SD, right?).

Montana. The democrats here couldn't get elected as republicans in
Pennsylvania. They'd be too far to the right.


I've lived
> in PA all my life, but it is becoming such a liberal cesspool that I may
> have to retire elsewehere.

A Wyoming address would be good and even more conservative than here.
No taxes.

>Guns
He's a hunter, I'm pretty sure they use guns for that (he's not a
bowhunter). Just because one doesn't support ownership of AK-47's and
public access to armor-piercing bullets doesn't make one an enemy to gun
ownership. In fact, his record as a senator reveals that he has
consistently supported appropriate gun ownership. I own two shotguns and a
couple of rifles - don't hunt, but skeet and target shoot. Even still, I
just don't think the average citizen needs armor-piercing bullets or AK-47's
(unless you live in remote parts of Alaska <grin>)/.

?, gay marriage

He stated he was against 'gay marriage' - but in favor of civil unions that
allowed long-time gay couples the right to visit their partner in the
hospital, claims to benefits, etc. This is something that I would think any
reasonable person would think a long-time couple would be entitled to
(regardless of the sexual orientation. You know the funny thing about this
kind of bigotry is that it reminds me of what we would hear in the 60's
"Can't let 'coloreds' have any rights and god-forbid they should be allowed
to marry white-folk". Jeesh,,, doesn't anyone EVER learn from the lessons
of the past.

When are we going to remember the line about 'separation of church and
state'. The gay population has become the new 'coloreds' - get over your
bigotry. Live and let live. A gay couple in a civil union or marriage,,,,
whatever,,,, is no threat to my marriage. In the end it is just about two
consenting adults that care about one another and recognizing that they have
pledged to spend the rest of their lives together - that sounds pretty cool
to me. Of course the ignorant 'religious right' will refer to the Bible,
citing that quote regarding the men of Sodom. I will ask these same people
if they have ever done anything wrong with their hand, or sinned by looking
at something and point out if they haven't cut off that hand or plucked out
that eye they have already violated more than a few of the directives in the
Bible. and <GASP> what if your women don't keep their heads covered (as
mentioned in both the Old testament AND in the NEW Testament in some of the
books of the New Testament written by Paul). Don't even get me started on
the absurd Adam and Eve story which (if you are ignorant enough to buy into
the account) makes it necessary for all their progeny to commit incest in
order to procreate - of course that would partly explain why some people
seem to have a 'birth defect' in their unreasoned thinking. <grin>

Regarding the 'gay marriage' issue,,, we need to develop policy based on
fairness and reason, not on some quaint historical book with a cross on it.
Jeesh,,, we might as well just worship rocks and pray to salamanders for all
the similar good it would do. Visit a children's hospital (I have and it
will break your heart),,, the children live and die the same whether they
pray to a 'god' or speak to hamsters... and personally, if there were a
divine being, I can't possibly think of a prayer more worthy of being
granted than the prayer of some dear 4 year old in a cancer ward, just
asking to see their next birthday, hardly ever seems to be 'granted' though.
Of course the 'beauty' of any superstition is that you can go on to make
excuses why it doesn't seem to work all the time, but it is still
superstition; borne from stories of magic, evil and good spirits.
Superstition is great to study, but makes a poor ruler to measure political
policy by and make legislative policy. Let's get out of the dark ages.

,> taxes

Good point,,, you're right Kerry was clearly against tax breaks for the
wealthy, the group that Bush was caught referring to during a private dinner
that was videotaped and to whom he referred to as "My own people" ---- Got
that right, W. Thank goodness there was someone looking out for the common
man (and still is,,,, as a Senator) as John Kerry.

>, the UN.

YIKES! Please tell me that you have most of your teeth and that you don't
play 'Dueling Banjos' along some remote bayou? The United Nations is
LEFTIST? Do you even know the history and original purpose of the United
Nations? Read a book! What was wrong with having a consensus (and some
help) before blundering into Vietnam... OOPS I mean Iraq? Were we under
attack,,,, NO,,,,, I seem to recall Afghanistan had posed that threat but we
never finished trying to get HIM.

> You may not agree but they are.

Well, YOU would know.... After all we 'know' that God is on our
side......... ooops... that's the same thinking of Bin Laden uses

<jeesh>

--
--
=-----
Good Flights!

Cecil
PP-ASEL-IA
Student - CP-ASEL

Check out my personal flying adventures from my first flight to the
checkride AND the continuing adventures beyond!
Complete with pictures and text at: www.bayareapilot.com

"I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things."
- Antoine de Saint-Exupery -

"We who fly, do so for the love of flying. We are alive in the air with
this miracle that lies in our hands and beneath our feet"
- Cecil Day Lewis -

> Oh, so know disagreeing with you means one is ignorant rather than a
> puppet. You are starting to sound like Kerry.

Unfortunately Kerry never said that. But, yes,,, one is truly ignorant, if
they mindlessly espouse the words and ideas of others without ever having
challenged those ideas, themselves.

Every thing you wrote was, literally, the same campaign rhetoric we have
heard from Bush.... The Kerry account is absurd,,, I spoke, at length, with
one of the individuals who served under Kerry. How you could defend a draft
dodger, like Bush; cowardly clinging onto the tails of daddy to get him out
of harms way and into the National Guard is something I cannot help.

Of course, some people think cocaine use, alcoholism and DUI are just fine
examples of a human being and would make FINE presidential material and
moral fiber - Obviously, my ethical bar is higher than your standard....
sad,,, but to each his own I suppose.

--
--
=-----
Good Flights!

Cecil
PP-ASEL-IA
Student - CP-ASEL

Check out my personal flying adventures from my first flight to the
checkride AND the continuing adventures beyond!
Complete with pictures and text at: www.bayareapilot.com

"I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things."
- Antoine de Saint-Exupery -

"We who fly, do so for the love of flying. We are alive in the air with
this miracle that lies in our hands and beneath our feet"
- Cecil Day Lewis -

P.S. You're right, we should all thank Mr. Bush for turning a hard-earned
surplus budget (earned under Clinton's rule) into a 4.3 trillion dollar
DEFICIT.

--
--
=-----
Good Flights!

Cecil
PP-ASEL-IA
Student - CP-ASEL

Check out my personal flying adventures from my first flight to the
checkride AND the continuing adventures beyond!
Complete with pictures and text at: www.bayareapilot.com

"I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things."
- Antoine de Saint-Exupery -

"We who fly, do so for the love of flying. We are alive in the air with
this miracle that lies in our hands and beneath our feet"
- Cecil Day Lewis -

The problem isn't so much that he is too far left, Kerry is simply
unlikable. The republicans often have a similiar problem in CA, the only
candidates that can win the nomination are too far right to win the election

Mike
MU-2

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:k_bid.351511$MQ5.252777@attbi_s52...
>> These people are mad Kerry didn't run a liberal campaign and can't stand
>> that he "was just as pro-war as Bush."
>
> That is SO ironic.
>
> If the Democrats has nominated a middle-of-the-road guy to run against
> Bush -- say, Dick Gephardt -- this election would not have even been
> close. The Democrats would have swept the nation, and never by less than
> 25 percentage points.
>
> Stupidly, they nominated a guy whose political positions were to the left
> of Ted Kennedy's, absolutely ensuring a Bush victory.
>
> There were many traditional Republicans out here -- myself included -- who
> would have voted for a conservative Democrat in this election. But there
> was just no way for any of us to vote for a guy like Kerry.
>
> The moral for the Democrats: Don't ever nominate an ultra liberal to run
> for president again.
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
>

To be fair, the only reason that there was a surplus is because the country
got caught up in a technology stock mania. The market was generating
trillions of short term gains and taxes on those gains is what swelled
federal and state coffers. Bush entered the white house with millions of
taxpayers carrying forward losses.

Mike
MU-2

"Cecil Chapman" > wrote in message
m...
> P.S. You're right, we should all thank Mr. Bush for turning a hard-earned
> surplus budget (earned under Clinton's rule) into a 4.3 trillion dollar
> DEFICIT.
>
> --
> --
> =-----
> Good Flights!
>
> Cecil
> PP-ASEL-IA
> Student - CP-ASEL
>
> Check out my personal flying adventures from my first flight to the
> checkride AND the continuing adventures beyond!
> Complete with pictures and text at: www.bayareapilot.com
>
> "I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things."
> - Antoine de Saint-Exupery -
>
> "We who fly, do so for the love of flying. We are alive in the air with
> this miracle that lies in our hands and beneath our feet"
> - Cecil Day Lewis -
>

Awww David, hang around! Lots of good stuff to be learned here. I've lived
on the earth long enough to recognize that living amongst Cro-Magnons can be
amusing. Yeah, they unfortunately have the right to vote,,,, but they make
a few grunts and run in the wall a few times and next thing we know, they
are running back to 'us' for advice and help.

I, too, am worried about the direction the country will take. For instance,
I never thought I'd see the day that something like the "Patriot Act" would
be put into place. Whenever we strip away the very core constitutional
rights of our people, we do a great harm to our nation and allow the
terrorists to exact an even more telling blow on our country. Fortunately,
there are enough men and women of reason who have actively gone after things
like the Patriot Act, aiding in disabling its' most sinister provisions. It
will be men and women of reason and good conscience that will bring things
around, again. I DO believe Kerry was one of those people, but thankfully
there are many like him - congressmen and women that won't allow those
precious and hard-fought-for documents to be attacked at their very heart;
The Constitution of The United States and The Bill of Rights - never EVER
letting us forget that our Constitution begins with those words; "WE, the
people......"

Though I can't say I believe in a divine being or UFO's (so, in my opinion,
we can't depend on extraterrestrials to help us, either) <grin>, I can say
that I have always believed that in times of dire circumstance that people
of good conscience will always overcome, persevere and succeed - even when
things look to be their darkest. This country will have it's time to shine,
again! :0) I believe that with all my heart! You should too!!! ;)

Stay with us! :O)

--
--
=-----
Good Flights!

Cecil
PP-ASEL-IA
Student - CP-ASEL

Check out my personal flying adventures from my first flight to the
checkride AND the continuing adventures beyond!
Complete with pictures and text at: www.bayareapilot.com

"I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things."
- Antoine de Saint-Exupery -

"We who fly, do so for the love of flying. We are alive in the air with
this miracle that lies in our hands and beneath our feet"
- Cecil Day Lewis -

What is your point supposed to be?

Mike
MU-2

"Peter MacPherson" > wrote in message
news:p4cid.564741$8_6.102644@attbi_s04...
> Good riddance, hope you enjoy France.
>

Cecil Chapman wrote:


>
> If there is any hope for our country, it will be when people learn to
> abandon their mindless following of party affiliation and do as I (and
> others) do; simply vote for the best man/woman for the job.

I did! He won!

JPH

> I'm a pro-life, pro-gun, low-tax Republican living in Boston,
> Massachusetts

Is the carnage that takes place in an unnecessary war like Iraq, pro-life?
Is there something I don't know and are their pro-life bullets and bombs
that don't kill? Oh wait,,, you DO believe in killing,,,, or don't you???
Oh wait,,, I get it,,,, only if it allows you to control the actions of
women,,, no problem,,, REALLY I understand, now.

> 51% of this country did not vote for fascism

Then please tell me what 'HOMELAND' (sounds like FATHERland) to me and the
Patriot Act are about. Let's not forget the TSA, an agency that can put law
into place WITHOUT POSSIBILITY FOR PUBLIC COMMENT. Tell me what detaining
individuals at G. Bay, for close to two years without even telling them what
they are being accused of and not allowing them access to attorneys sounds
like? (this of course is changing due to court challenges). I'm pretty sure
we pledge, "With liberty and justice for ALL",,, that's what I remember,
Jay. Do you do a different Pledge of Allegiance in Iowa?

> gay sex a part of grade-school curricula.

When grade schoolers study traditional marriage in their schools, do those
courses talk about the various sexual positions the man and women get in,
and who gets to be on-top and the like? Of course, not. Mentioning that
Paul may love Sandy or Sandy may Love Jill and be a couple is all that's
mentioned - it's called tolerance for differences Jay. Remember similar
arguments about black people and civil rights? God forbid, back then, if
there was a kids book showing an interracial couple <mock gasp>.

Lastly, Jay,,,, being around a gay person won't 'make' you gay. Otherwise
Cheney would be 'flaming' (he has a lesbian daughter, don't ya know),,, by
the way,,,, when Cheney was asked he said that he couldn't answer for the
president, but for himself he felt that their SHOULD be an opportunity for
the same things that straight married couples (including civil
union/marriage) have and it was clear that he loved his daughter very much.

.." One of my
> best friends is a hardcore lesbian environmental journalist

and you STILL are clueless????

who went to
> Smith, and I've worked on the staff of one of the alternative newspapers
> up
> here.
Yikes, Jay,, that makes you gay, then! ;)

> Let's just say that when I went to the Halloween party this year, all
> the goths, gays, trannies, and just plain weirdoes looked at me like I was
> the freak.

Yeah, and one can imagine that it's not fun for the gay/lesbian population
to be walking around amongst us straights and be looked at like weird
freaks...... See this is what I mean about people like yourself,,, they
don't see the connections between their own observations.


--
--
=-----
Good Flights!

Cecil
PP-ASEL-IA
Student - CP-ASEL

Check out my personal flying adventures from my first flight to the
checkride AND the continuing adventures beyond!
Complete with pictures and text at: www.bayareapilot.com

"I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things."
- Antoine de Saint-Exupery -

"We who fly, do so for the love of flying. We are alive in the air with
this miracle that lies in our hands and beneath our feet"
- Cecil Day Lewis -
"C Kingsbury" > wrote in message
link.net...
>
> "David Brooks" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> That being so, and despite what should be an apolitical setting, I can no
>> longer in good faith keep company with a group of which the majority, I
>> know, has elected to deliver the country I love, and chose as my home,
> into
>> the hands of Bush and his repressive, regressive masters.
>
> Get a $&%@!ing helmet, dude.
>

> for the past ten years. Most of the people I know don't understand how an
> educated, reasonable person like me could vote for "that chimp>
> These people are mad Kerry didn't run a liberal campaign and can't stand
> that he "was just as pro-war as Bush." Given the choice they'd like us to
> pull out of Iraq and beg the UN's forgiveness, raise taxes back to 70% on
Need I say that I think their
> policies would devastate this country just as terribly as you think W's
> policies will?
>
> Still, I've managed to become and remain friends with quite a few of these
> people because I realize that they're not actually bad people, just
> misguided. Naturally they feel the same about me. Some of them I'm happy
> to
> have long debates with over vast quantities of alcohol, others I only talk
> about other topics with. Life goes on and is richer for the company of
> people who think differently than I do.
>
, they voted for George W. Bush.
> There's a difference if you care to see it.
>
> -cwk.
>
>

Hey! Check your oxygen, you're showing symptoms of hypoxia!

JPH

David Brooks wrote:

> One thing - one of so very many things - I learned in my five years of
> flying is that partisan politics does not fit into the cockpit. Most of my
> flight instructors have, I know, been to the right of me politically. I had
> a most enjoyable flight with CJ - although he has since earned my undying
> enmity by unapologetically using the term "Final Solution" in connection
> with me and people like me, an astonishing thought coming from an avowedly
> religious man, but telling and apt.
>
> But now it seems the nation has, albeit by a slim margin, re-elected a weak,
> hypocritical, murderous coward. Three years ago, when some writers on the
> left started talking about fascism, I thought that an absurd stretch. No
> longer. The parallels are not precise - they never are - but the broad sweep
> and many of the components of a new fascist state are in place. The 48% who
> didn't vote for this disaster keep knocking on my consciousness, but they
> are now feeble and impotent. The thugs are in charge.
>
> That being so, and despite what should be an apolitical setting, I can no
> longer in good faith keep company with a group of which the majority, I
> know, has elected to deliver the country I love, and chose as my home, into
> the hands of Bush and his repressive, regressive masters.
>
> So long. Thanks for all the conversations. You guys have made me a better
> pilot.
>
> -- David Brooks
>
>

Naw, I think he is just feeling a little frustrated. Personally I am just
grateful that Bush clearly had the popular vote (even if slim) so it wasn't
like 2000, made it a little easier to take. Though he still looks like a
chimp <grin> ;) My candidate at least resembled a humanoid; Herman Munster
<GRIN>

--
--
=-----
Good Flights!

Cecil
PP-ASEL-IA
Student - CP-ASEL

Check out my personal flying adventures from my first flight to the
checkride AND the continuing adventures beyond!
Complete with pictures and text at: www.bayareapilot.com

"I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things."
- Antoine de Saint-Exupery -

"We who fly, do so for the love of flying. We are alive in the air with
this miracle that lies in our hands and beneath our feet"
- Cecil Day Lewis -
"Trent Moorehead" > wrote in message
...

Cecil Chapman wrote:
>
> >Guns
> He's a hunter, I'm pretty sure they use guns for that (he's not a
> bowhunter).

He's opposed to private ownership of any firearm except shotguns plugged to three
shells. And just where in the Constitution exactly is hunting mentioned? He prattles
about "military-style assault weapons" while trying to ban semi-automatics, knowing
full well that no military-style assault weapon is semi-automatic.

I have the right to own and fire my Mauser, and, as far as I'm concerned, that
includes the right to be allowed to buy ammunition for it. Kerry tried to ban that,
and we aren't talking anything armor-piercing here.

One of the most frustrating things is that Kerry, Kennedy, and their ilk have people
like you convinced that the laws they want to pass will ban access to modern military
weapons and armour-piercing ammo. They won't. Laws to do that were passed in FDR's
time.

George Patterson
If a man gets into a fight 3,000 miles away from home, he *had* to have
been looking for it.

On 11/3/04 7:17 PM, in article , "Blanche"
> wrote:

>
> On the other hand, if Rehnquist resigns, Sandra Day O'Connor is next
> in line for Chief Justice of the Supremes! But as one pundit said today,
> she's already got huge power as the swing vote all the time.
>
>

Chief Justice is designated by the President, and is not always the one with
the longest tenure. I wouldn't set my hopes on a Chief Justice O'Connor if I
were you. Since she's already in her 70's, I'd put my money on one that will
be around a bit longer.
--
Jeff 'The Wizard of Draws' Bucchino
Cartoons with a Touch of Magic�
http://www.wizardofdraws.com
http://www.cartoonclipart.com

Newps wrote:
>
>
> Matt Whiting wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> I'm thinking of moving to a state like yours (SD, right?).
>
>
> Montana. The democrats here couldn't get elected as republicans in
> Pennsylvania. They'd be too far to the right.
>
>
> I've lived
>
>> in PA all my life, but it is becoming such a liberal cesspool that I
>> may have to retire elsewehere.
>
>
> A Wyoming address would be good and even more conservative than here. No
> taxes.

Why are all of the conservatives states in places that are cold in the
winter? My grandfather always said that the cold winters "kept the
riff-raff out" and I'm beginning to think he was right. :-)


Matt

Cecil Chapman wrote:

> >Guns
> He's a hunter, I'm pretty sure they use guns for that (he's not a
> bowhunter). Just because one doesn't support ownership of AK-47's and
> public access to armor-piercing bullets doesn't make one an enemy to gun
> ownership. In fact, his record as a senator reveals that he has
> consistently supported appropriate gun ownership. I own two shotguns and a
> couple of rifles - don't hunt, but skeet and target shoot. Even still, I
> just don't think the average citizen needs armor-piercing bullets or AK-47's
> (unless you live in remote parts of Alaska <grin>)/.

He's only a hunter when there is a camera around. His comments about
hunting show that he hasn't a clue about hunting. Funny, I don't recall
the second amendment ever mentioning hunting, or "appropriate" gun
ownership. You must have a different constitution than I have.

Kerry is so hypocritical he makes even Bill Clinton look like an honest man.


Matt

Cecil Chapman wrote:

>>Oh, so know disagreeing with you means one is ignorant rather than a
>>puppet. You are starting to sound like Kerry.
>
>
> Unfortunately Kerry never said that. But, yes,,, one is truly ignorant, if
> they mindlessly espouse the words and ideas of others without ever having
> challenged those ideas, themselves.
>
> Every thing you wrote was, literally, the same campaign rhetoric we have
> heard from Bush.... The Kerry account is absurd,,, I spoke, at length, with
> one of the individuals who served under Kerry. How you could defend a draft
> dodger, like Bush; cowardly clinging onto the tails of daddy to get him out
> of harms way and into the National Guard is something I cannot help.

I never defended Bushes military record. I simply stated my opinion of
Kerry's.


> Of course, some people think cocaine use, alcoholism and DUI are just fine
> examples of a human being and would make FINE presidential material and
> moral fiber - Obviously, my ethical bar is higher than your standard....
> sad,,, but to each his own I suppose.

Yes, but Kerry didn't get elected so we don't have to worry about any of
the above with respect to our president.


Matt

> He's opposed to private ownership of any firearm except shotguns plugged
> to three
> shells. And just where in the Constitution exactly is hunting mentioned?
> He prattles
> about "military-style assault weapons" while trying to ban
> semi-automatics, knowing
> full well that no military-style assault weapon is semi-automatic.

Have you actually read his voting record and what types of weapons each
respective legislation was referring to? Evidently, not!

--
--
=-----
Good Flights!

Cecil
PP-ASEL-IA
Student - CP-ASEL

Check out my personal flying adventures from my first flight to the
checkride AND the continuing adventures beyond!
Complete with pictures and text at: www.bayareapilot.com

"I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things."
- Antoine de Saint-Exupery -

"We who fly, do so for the love of flying. We are alive in the air with
this miracle that lies in our hands and beneath our feet"
- Cecil Day Lewis -

> I have the right to own and fire my Mauser, and, as far as I'm concerned,
> that
> includes the right to be allowed to buy ammunition for it. Kerry tried to
> ban that,

I almost forgot,,,,what for goodness sake do you need to be firing
ammunition as large as the type that the Mauser uses? Are the deer BIGGER
where you live,,, home protection, if that's what you are thinking, favors a
shotgun (that's per some cop friends, who would know).

But PLEASE tell me that you aren't one of those crazies that thinks that if
the "government takes over" its' citizens, you are going to be there like
Rambo to prevent it - if that's it,,, don't want to have to tell ya bub, but
you'll be easily outgunned and outmanned and be planted in the ground in
your tracks, faster than you can blink.

Then there are the Freudian possibilities regarding the subconscious need to
have BIG cartridges <grin>

--
--
=-----
Good Flights!

Cecil
PP-ASEL-IA
Student - CP-ASEL

Check out my personal flying adventures from my first flight to the
checkride AND the continuing adventures beyond!
Complete with pictures and text at: www.bayareapilot.com

"I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things."
- Antoine de Saint-Exupery -

"We who fly, do so for the love of flying. We are alive in the air with
this miracle that lies in our hands and beneath our feet"
- Cecil Day Lewis -

I'm not sure I agree... I think Gephardt lost out because of nothing
short of a lack of charisma. I don't think people were paying that much
attention to positions or character during the primaries, and there were
way too many people on the list to go very deep. But if he wasn't
charismatic enough to beat Kerry on the Primaries, I'm not sure he would
have had what it took to beat Bush either. After all, Gore lost on
charisma too.

I think where Kerry blew it worst is that he never really recovered from
the whole "flip-flop" persona. He had opportunities to. But basically,
his only comeback was to say that he misspoke when he talked about
"voting for it before voting against it." From a public perception, he
was saying that he made a mistake by poorly describing his flip-flopping,
but never actually addressed the issue of flip-flopping itself.

He didn't focus (as I think he should have) on the reality that
sometimes it is better to change your opinion in light of new facts than
to hold firm to a lie. He could have very easily turned the whole thing
around and put Bush in a defensive position - either the President of the
United States had the wool pulled over his eyes by his own intelligence
agency and is incompetent, or he had hidden motives and went into Iraq
based on a lie and pulled the wool over the eyes of the American people
and is undeserving. Instead, he left his own trustworthiness unaddressed,
and the public just didn't trust him. It didn't help, either, that he
constantly spoke about how he had a "better plan" for Iraq, but never
really qualified that with what the plan was... Basically it left his
credibility completely in question.

Either way, I think this is a much more serious issue than stem cell
research, or Gay Marraige. I strongly suspect that what the news media is
labelling "Moral Values" is not about the latter issues nearly as much as
about just general credibility. I guess liberals like me prefer to give
Kerry a chance, rather than let Bush go on pulling the wool over our eyes
(or allowing it to be pulled over our eyes by his staff). Where
conservatives would rather have someone they are comfortable with in
office than give the new, unpredictable guy a chance, especially if he
has shown he might not be perfect either.


No, I think the biggest problem in this election was simply that there
was not much difference at all between the two candidates, or if there
was, it was so clouded by nonessential issues that the general public was
left to vote on whether they are more comfortable with or without change,
and not much else.


"Jay Honeck" > wrote in
news:k_bid.351511$MQ5.252777@attbi_s52:

>> These people are mad Kerry didn't run a liberal campaign and can't
>> stand that he "was just as pro-war as Bush."
>
> That is SO ironic.
>
> If the Democrats has nominated a middle-of-the-road guy to run against
> Bush -- say, Dick Gephardt -- this election would not have even been
> close. The Democrats would have swept the nation, and never by less
> than 25 percentage points.
>
> Stupidly, they nominated a guy whose political positions were to the
> left of Ted Kennedy's, absolutely ensuring a Bush victory.
>
> There were many traditional Republicans out here -- myself included --
> who would have voted for a conservative Democrat in this election. But
> there was just no way for any of us to vote for a guy like Kerry.
>
> The moral for the Democrats: Don't ever nominate an ultra liberal to
> run for president again.

Bob Chilcoat wrote:

> I absolutely agree with you, Jay. Yet again, I had to vote AGAINST a
> candidate, rather than FOR one. I just thought Kerry was the least-bad
> candidate. When Bush opens his mouth, or just looks at the camera, for that
> matter, the back of my hair goes up. What thinking individual could vote
> FOR this idiot. I guess my version of the least-bad candidate was the same
> as only 49.9% of the rest of the country.
>
> Apparently you can fool 50% of the people, but there is always a noise
> function.

I've often wondered why some people feel the need to insult the intelligence of
their fellow voters who simply do not agree with their world views. Different
people have different experiences in their life, and some people even study
macroeconomics in depth. :) And the same treatment is given to candidates.
Although he has his moments, everyone knows Bush isn't a great orator, but he
sure isn't an idiot either.

Finally, the notion that somebody can't share in a newsgroup because some other
people in the same group have a different political leaning is reminiscent of
early childhood mentality. Hopefully this person will reconsider, perhaps after
sleeping on it.

>"Bob Chilcoat" wrote in message -
>Yet again, I had to vote AGAINST a
> candidate, rather than FOR one.

Many people didn't vote for Bush as much as they voted against Edwards.
Having a trial lawyer a heartbeat away from the presidency was the greater
evil for many voters. As I recall, it was trial lawyers that managed to wipe
out piston-engine airplane production for over a decade.

D.

Capt.Doug ) wrote:

> Many people didn't vote for Bush as much as they voted against Edwards.
> Having a trial lawyer a heartbeat away from the presidency was the greater
> evil for many voters. As I recall, it was trial lawyers that managed to wipe
> out piston-engine airplane production for over a decade.

Amen to that.

--
Peter

Actually, come to think of it, where Kerry really went wrong was by taking
all of the spotlight away from Edwards after the "pat on the ass" incident.
Had he plastered Edwards' face on the front of the ticket prominently next
to his, he would have gotten more of the women and gay men to come out and
vote for him - enough to win several of those borderline states!


Judah > wrote in
:

> I'm not sure I agree... I think Gephardt lost out because of nothing
> short of a lack of charisma. I don't think people were paying that much
> attention to positions or character during the primaries, and there
> were way too many people on the list to go very deep. But if he wasn't
> charismatic enough to beat Kerry on the Primaries, I'm not sure he
> would have had what it took to beat Bush either. After all, Gore lost
> on charisma too.
>
> I think where Kerry blew it worst is that he never really recovered
> from the whole "flip-flop" persona. He had opportunities to. But
> basically, his only comeback was to say that he misspoke when he talked
> about "voting for it before voting against it." From a public
> perception, he was saying that he made a mistake by poorly describing
> his flip-flopping, but never actually addressed the issue of
> flip-flopping itself.
>
> He didn't focus (as I think he should have) on the reality that
> sometimes it is better to change your opinion in light of new facts
> than to hold firm to a lie. He could have very easily turned the whole
> thing around and put Bush in a defensive position - either the
> President of the United States had the wool pulled over his eyes by his
> own intelligence agency and is incompetent, or he had hidden motives
> and went into Iraq based on a lie and pulled the wool over the eyes of
> the American people and is undeserving. Instead, he left his own
> trustworthiness unaddressed, and the public just didn't trust him. It
> didn't help, either, that he constantly spoke about how he had a
> "better plan" for Iraq, but never really qualified that with what the
> plan was... Basically it left his credibility completely in question.
>
> Either way, I think this is a much more serious issue than stem cell
> research, or Gay Marraige. I strongly suspect that what the news media
> is labelling "Moral Values" is not about the latter issues nearly as
> much as about just general credibility. I guess liberals like me prefer
> to give Kerry a chance, rather than let Bush go on pulling the wool
> over our eyes (or allowing it to be pulled over our eyes by his staff).
> Where conservatives would rather have someone they are comfortable with
> in office than give the new, unpredictable guy a chance, especially if
> he has shown he might not be perfect either.
>
>
> No, I think the biggest problem in this election was simply that there
> was not much difference at all between the two candidates, or if there
> was, it was so clouded by nonessential issues that the general public
> was left to vote on whether they are more comfortable with or without
> change, and not much else.
>
>
> "Jay Honeck" > wrote in
> news:k_bid.351511$MQ5.252777@attbi_s52:
>
>>> These people are mad Kerry didn't run a liberal campaign and can't
>>> stand that he "was just as pro-war as Bush."
>>
>> That is SO ironic.
>>
>> If the Democrats has nominated a middle-of-the-road guy to run against
>> Bush -- say, Dick Gephardt -- this election would not have even been
>> close. The Democrats would have swept the nation, and never by less
>> than 25 percentage points.
>>
>> Stupidly, they nominated a guy whose political positions were to the
>> left of Ted Kennedy's, absolutely ensuring a Bush victory.
>>
>> There were many traditional Republicans out here -- myself included --
>> who would have voted for a conservative Democrat in this election.
>> But there was just no way for any of us to vote for a guy like Kerry.
>>
>> The moral for the Democrats: Don't ever nominate an ultra liberal to
>> run for president again.
>
>

"Cecil Chapman" > wrote in message
m...
>> I have the right to own and fire my Mauser, and, as far as I'm concerned,
>> that
>> includes the right to be allowed to buy ammunition for it. Kerry tried to
>> ban that,
>
> I almost forgot,,,,what for goodness sake do you need to be firing
> ammunition as large as the type that the Mauser uses? Are the deer BIGGER
> where you live,,, home protection, if that's what you are thinking, favors
> a shotgun (that's per some cop friends, who would know).
>
> But PLEASE tell me that you aren't one of those crazies that thinks that
> if the "government takes over" its' citizens, you are going to be there
> like Rambo to prevent it - if that's it,,, don't want to have to tell ya
> bub, but you'll be easily outgunned and outmanned and be planted in the
> ground in your tracks, faster than you can blink.
>
> Then there are the Freudian possibilities regarding the subconscious need
> to have BIG cartridges <grin>


Please, the 2nd ammendment says I have the right to firearms, not just the
ones that some folks say are ok.


>
> --
> --
> =-----
> Good Flights!
>
> Cecil
> PP-ASEL-IA
> Student - CP-ASEL
>
> Check out my personal flying adventures from my first flight to the
> checkride AND the continuing adventures beyond!
> Complete with pictures and text at: www.bayareapilot.com
>
> "I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things."
> - Antoine de Saint-Exupery -
>
> "We who fly, do so for the love of flying. We are alive in the air with
> this miracle that lies in our hands and beneath our feet"
> - Cecil Day Lewis -
>

"kontiki" > wrote in message
...
> Trent Moorehead wrote:[i]
> >.... I used to think that Democrats were the type of people
>> who were accepting of others, but I have seen over the last few years
>> that
>> they are not. I am a Democrat, but I voted for Bush. He's not perfect,
>> but
>> at least he's not a hypocrite.
>
> The liberal democrats I have direct experience with always boast that they
> are so tolerant and so pro-choice. This only applies to choice in
> abortions
> however, and they do NOT approve of choice when it comes to the following:
>
> 1) choice in whether or not someone desirec to own firearms (they are
> against that)
> 2) choice in education... they are against anything other than mandatory
> public schools
> 3) choice in placing your FICA taxes into anything other than the social
> security
> 4) choice in health care... they ultimately want the government in charge
> of all health care options.
>
> I could mention more but what stir up the natives.
>
>

Great response!

"Cecil Chapman" > wrote in message
...
> Awww David, hang around! Lots of good stuff to be learned here. I've
> lived on the earth long enough to recognize that living amongst
> Cro-Magnons can be amusing. Yeah, they unfortunately have the right to
> vote,,,, but they make a few grunts and run in the wall a few times and
> next thing we know, they are running back to 'us' for advice and help.
>
> I, too, am worried about the direction the country will take. For
> instance, I never thought I'd see the day that something like the "Patriot
> Act" would be put into place. Whenever we strip away the very core
> constitutional rights of our people, we do a great harm to our nation and
> allow the terrorists to exact an even more telling blow on our country.
> Fortunately, there are enough men and women of reason who have actively
> gone after things like the Patriot Act, aiding in disabling its' most
> sinister provisions. It will be men and women of reason and good
> conscience that will bring things around, again. I DO believe Kerry was
> one of those people, but thankfully there are many like him - congressmen
> and women that won't allow those precious and hard-fought-for documents to
> be attacked at their very heart; The Constitution of The United States and
> The Bill of Rights - never EVER letting us forget that our Constitution
> begins with those words; "WE, the people......"

Like the second ammendment?

>
> Though I can't say I believe in a divine being or UFO's (so, in my
> opinion, we can't depend on extraterrestrials to help us, either) <grin>,
> I can say that I have always believed that in times of dire circumstance
> that people of good conscience will always overcome, persevere and
> succeed - even when things look to be their darkest. This country will
> have it's time to shine, again! :0) I believe that with all my heart!
> You should too!!! ;)
>
> Stay with us! :O)
>
> --
> --
> =-----
> Good Flights!
>
> Cecil
> PP-ASEL-IA
> Student - CP-ASEL
>
> Check out my personal flying adventures from my first flight to the
> checkride AND the continuing adventures beyond!
> Complete with pictures and text at: www.bayareapilot.com
>
> "I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things."
> - Antoine de Saint-Exupery -
>
> "We who fly, do so for the love of flying. We are alive in the air with
> this miracle that lies in our hands and beneath our feet"
> - Cecil Day Lewis -
>

Couldn't have said it better myself, Cecil.

Thanks for taking the time. Too bad it's all wasted, though.

mike regish

"Cecil Chapman" > wrote in message
m...
>
>
> >Guns
> He's a hunter, I'm pretty sure they use guns for that (he's not a
> bowhunter). Just because one doesn't support ownership of AK-47's and
> public access to armor-piercing bullets doesn't make one an enemy to gun
> ownership. In fact, his record as a senator reveals that he has
> consistently supported appropriate gun ownership. I own two shotguns and
> a couple of rifles - don't hunt, but skeet and target shoot. Even still,
> I just don't think the average citizen needs armor-piercing bullets or
> AK-47's (unless you live in remote parts of Alaska <grin>)/.
>
> ?, gay marriage
>
> He stated he was against 'gay marriage' - but in favor of civil unions
> that allowed long-time gay couples the right to visit their partner in the
> hospital, claims to benefits, etc. This is something that I would think
> any reasonable person would think a long-time couple would be entitled to
> (regardless of the sexual orientation. You know the funny thing about this
> kind of bigotry is that it reminds me of what we would hear in the 60's
> "Can't let 'coloreds' have any rights and god-forbid they should be
> allowed to marry white-folk". Jeesh,,, doesn't anyone EVER learn from the
> lessons of the past.
>
> When are we going to remember the line about 'separation of church and
> state'. The gay population has become the new 'coloreds' - get over your
> bigotry. Live and let live. A gay couple in a civil union or
> marriage,,,, whatever,,,, is no threat to my marriage. In the end it is
> just about two consenting adults that care about one another and
> recognizing that they have pledged to spend the rest of their lives
> together - that sounds pretty cool to me. Of course the ignorant
> 'religious right' will refer to the Bible, citing that quote regarding the
> men of Sodom. I will ask these same people if they have ever done
> anything wrong with their hand, or sinned by looking at something and
> point out if they haven't cut off that hand or plucked out that eye they
> have already violated more than a few of the directives in the Bible. and
> <GASP> what if your women don't keep their heads covered (as mentioned in
> both the Old testament AND in the NEW Testament in some of the books of
> the New Testament written by Paul). Don't even get me started on the
> absurd Adam and Eve story which (if you are ignorant enough to buy into
> the account) makes it necessary for all their progeny to commit incest in
> order to procreate - of course that would partly explain why some people
> seem to have a 'birth defect' in their unreasoned thinking. <grin>
>
> Regarding the 'gay marriage' issue,,, we need to develop policy based on
> fairness and reason, not on some quaint historical book with a cross on
> it. Jeesh,,, we might as well just worship rocks and pray to salamanders
> for all the similar good it would do. Visit a children's hospital (I have
> and it will break your heart),,, the children live and die the same
> whether they pray to a 'god' or speak to hamsters... and personally, if
> there were a divine being, I can't possibly think of a prayer more worthy
> of being granted than the prayer of some dear 4 year old in a cancer ward,
> just asking to see their next birthday, hardly ever seems to be 'granted'
> though. Of course the 'beauty' of any superstition is that you can go on
> to make excuses why it doesn't seem to work all the time, but it is still
> superstition; borne from stories of magic, evil and good spirits.
> Superstition is great to study, but makes a poor ruler to measure
> political policy by and make legislative policy. Let's get out of the
> dark ages.
>
> ,> taxes
>
> Good point,,, you're right Kerry was clearly against tax breaks for the
> wealthy, the group that Bush was caught referring to during a private
> dinner that was videotaped and to whom he referred to as "My own
> eople" ---- Got that right, W. Thank goodness there was someone looking
> out for the common man (and still is,,,, as a Senator) as John Kerry.
>
>>, the UN.
>
> YIKES! Please tell me that you have most of your teeth and that you don't
> play 'Dueling Banjos' along some remote bayou? The United Nations is
> LEFTIST? Do you even know the history and original purpose of the United
> Nations? Read a book! What was wrong with having a consensus (and some
> help) before blundering into Vietnam... OOPS I mean Iraq? Were we under
> attack,,,, NO,,,,, I seem to recall Afghanistan had posed that threat but
> we never finished trying to get HIM.
>
>> You may not agree but they are.
>
> Well, YOU would know.... After all we 'know' that God is on our
> side......... ooops... that's the same thinking of Bin Laden uses
>
> <jeesh>
>
> --
> --
> =-----
> Good Flights!
>
> Cecil
> PP-ASEL-IA
> Student - CP-ASEL
>
> Check out my personal flying adventures from my first flight to the
> checkride AND the continuing adventures beyond!
> Complete with pictures and text at: www.bayareapilot.com
>
> "I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things."
> - Antoine de Saint-Exupery -
>
> "We who fly, do so for the love of flying. We are alive in the air with
> this miracle that lies in our hands and beneath our feet"
> - Cecil Day Lewis -
>

Cecil,

Repeat after me. Never, never, never argue second amendment rights in a
newsgroup. If you need frustration try teaching your dog not to chase
rabbits. In fact, you have a better chance of succeeding there than you do
in converting NRA members.

Michael
(A confirmed gun control advocate...)



"Cecil Chapman" > wrote in message
m...
>> He's opposed to private ownership of any firearm except shotguns plugged
>> to three
>> shells. And just where in the Constitution exactly is hunting mentioned?
>> He prattles
>> about "military-style assault weapons" while trying to ban
>> semi-automatics, knowing
>> full well that no military-style assault weapon is semi-automatic.
>
> Have you actually read his voting record and what types of weapons each
> respective legislation was referring to? Evidently, not!
>
> --
> --
> =-----
> Good Flights!
>
> Cecil
> PP-ASEL-IA
> Student - CP-ASEL
>
> Check out my personal flying adventures from my first flight to the
> checkride AND the continuing adventures beyond!
> Complete with pictures and text at: www.bayareapilot.com
>
> "I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things."
> - Antoine de Saint-Exupery -
>
> "We who fly, do so for the love of flying. We are alive in the air with
> this miracle that lies in our hands and beneath our feet"
> - Cecil Day Lewis -
>

"Laura Clayton" > wrote in message
...
>> Apparently you can fool 50% of the people, but there is always a noise
>> function.
>
> I've often wondered why some people feel the need to insult the
> intelligence of their fellow voters who simply do not agree with
> their world views.

Actually, according to the Gallup Poll, among Republicans you can fool over
60% of the people.

I can't speak for where Bob's coming from, but the truth remains that for
the most part, people who voted for Bush don't actually have their facts
straight. This is not disputable.

Pete

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message

>
> Why are all of the conservatives states in places that are cold in the
> winter?

They're not. :)

--
John T
http://tknowlogy.com/TknoFlyer
http://www.pocketgear.com/products_search.asp?developerid=4415
____________________

> To be fair, the only reason that there was a surplus is because the
> country got caught up in a technology stock mania. The market was
> generating trillions of short term gains and taxes on those gains is what
> swelled federal and state coffers. Bush entered the white house with
> millions of taxpayers carrying forward losses.

Now, hush, Mike.

Don't confuse Cecil with facts like these -- it'll get in the way of his
built-up, hard-earned dander...

;-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Jay Honeck wrote:

>>These people are mad Kerry didn't run a liberal campaign and can't stand
>>that he "was just as pro-war as Bush."
>
>
> That is SO ironic.
>
> If the Democrats has nominated a middle-of-the-road guy to run against
> Bush -- say, Dick Gephardt -- this election would not have even been close.
> The Democrats would have swept the nation, and never by less than 25
> percentage points.
>

Heck, if Bush was anywhere near the middle of the road, I might have
considered voting for him.


I actually had a very unusual experience this election. One of the
minor statewide offices here (Chairman of the State Agriculture
Commission) had two candidates that had almost identical experience
and who held almost identical views regarding the position they were
running for. What really made it strange, though, was the fact that I
agreed with their positions! It's extremely unusual for there to be
one candidate in a contest that I feel I can vote _for_, but two????
I almost didn't know what to do.

Rich Lemert

"Capt.Doug" > wrote in message
> Many people didn't vote for Bush as much as they voted against Edwards.

Just chiming in here but speak for yourself. I voted FOR Bush and utterly
against JOhn KErry.

--
Jim Fisher

Cecil Chapman wrote:

> P.S. You're right, we should all thank Mr. Bush for turning a hard-earned
> surplus budget (earned under Clinton's rule) into a 4.3 trillion dollar
> DEFICIT.

The surplus budget was a scam, since much of that income turned out to be
losses due to technology speculation, rampant unchecked corporate fraud in the
late 90s, and even during the "surplus" social security monies were still
being siphoned off. The Nasdaq market peaked Jan 2000, and NYSE was dropping
steadily after March 2000,well before Bush was in office. Also keep in mind
that Bush had nothing to do with FY 2001 budget, which was in effect through
30 Sep 2001. The deficit did have much to do with an attack that happened on
Sept 2001, you may recall it, and the war on the terrorists. More attacks and
there wouldn't be much of an economy to worry about deficits. I don't recall
FDR holding off entering the WWII after Pearl Harbor because of worrying about
current deficits. We all remember the deficit scare stories from the 1980s,
and as the economy grew and expanded in time, the tax revenue came back in.
Deficits now are not extraordinary when properly compared to GDP, historically
speaking. Current GDP growth is about 4.3%, showing strong growth, especially
when compared with other Western nations, such as Germany, that hope, hope for
GDP growth in the 0.2% range this year.

Also remember a deficit is a flow concept, not a stock concept that can be
inherited.

Cecil Chapman wrote:

> > I have the right to own and fire my Mauser, and, as far as I'm concerned,
> > that
> > includes the right to be allowed to buy ammunition for it. Kerry tried to
> > ban that,
>
> I almost forgot,,,,what for goodness sake do you need to be firing
> ammunition as large as the type that the Mauser uses? Are the deer BIGGER
> where you live,,, home protection, if that's what you are thinking, favors a
> shotgun (that's per some cop friends, who would know).
>
> But PLEASE tell me that you aren't one of those crazies that thinks that if
> the "government takes over" its' citizens, you are going to be there like
> Rambo to prevent it - if that's it,,, don't want to have to tell ya bub, but
> you'll be easily outgunned and outmanned and be planted in the ground in
> your tracks, faster than you can blink.
>
> Then there are the Freudian possibilities regarding the subconscious need to
> have BIG cartridges <grin>

The 2nd amendment speaks of the right to bear arms, not the right to bear arms
that are approved by certain folks. Similarily the 1st amendment provides right
to free speech to make remarks about all kinds of issues, not just certain
issues that some folks feel ok.

"Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> To be fair, the only reason that there was a surplus is because the
> country got caught up in a technology stock mania. The market was
> generating trillions of short term gains and taxes on those gains is what
> swelled federal and state coffers. Bush entered the white house with
> millions of taxpayers carrying forward losses.

Not fair, Mike. That studious observation is waaay to complicated for us
little people to grasp.

--
Jim Fisher

Jim Fisher wrote:

> "Capt.Doug" > wrote in message
> > Many people didn't vote for Bush as much as they voted against Edwards.
>
> Just chiming in here but speak for yourself. I voted FOR Bush and utterly
> against JOhn KErry.

I voted for Bush before I voted against John Kerry.

> I'm not sure I agree... I think Gephardt lost out because of nothing
> short of a lack of charisma. I don't think people were paying that much
> attention to positions or character during the primaries, and there were
> way too many people on the list to go very deep. But if he wasn't
> charismatic enough to beat Kerry on the Primaries, I'm not sure he would
> have had what it took to beat Bush either. After all, Gore lost on
> charisma too.

I agree with you there, but it's my belief that Bush was ideologically
vulnerable, and that a guy closer to the center (ala Gebhardt) would have at
least grabbed enough of the popular vote (and people like me, who weren't
100% enthused with Bush) to have tipped the scales his way.

But we'll never really know...

The Democrats simply have to figure out a way to select their nominees
better, if they ever want to win the presidency. They've got to find
someone who hones closer to the beliefs of mainstream America, without
alienating their huge (and incredibly vocal) left wing. The Republicans
have figured this out -- I'm surprised the Democrats haven't.

If anything, they seem to be learning precisely the wrong lesson from this
loss, blaming Kerry for not being "Democrat" enough. This seems
ludicrous, given the mood of the nation (at least outside of the big
cities), and how diametrically opposed Kerry's positions were to what most
Americans want and believe.

Mark my words: If they nominate Hillary next time around -- as they appear
to be angling toward -- it will set the Democratic Party back 50 years.
They won't see the White House again in our lifetime.

And now, back to flying!
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Methinks you've confused me with another poster, Cecil, as I clearly am NOT
the guy who wrote:

>> I'm a pro-life, pro-gun, low-tax Republican living in Boston,
>> Massachusetts

> When grade schoolers study traditional marriage in their schools, do those
> courses talk about the various sexual positions the man and women get in,
> and who gets to be on-top and the like? Of course, not. Mentioning that
> Paul may love Sandy or Sandy may Love Jill and be a couple is all that's
> mentioned - it's called tolerance for differences Jay.

Ya gotta keep your eye on that top line better...

It 'tweren't me that wrote what you are ascribing to me...
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

> Naw, I think he is just feeling a little frustrated. Personally I am just
> grateful that Bush clearly had the popular vote (even if slim) so it
> wasn't like 2000, made it a little easier to take. Though he still looks
> like a chimp <grin> ;) My candidate at least resembled a humanoid; Herman
> Munster <GRIN>

THERE you go. That's the ticket.

It's time to laugh about it, have a beer, and get back to flying. This crap
is over for another four years...
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

"Cecil Chapman" > wrote in message
m
>
> When are we going to remember the line about 'separation of church and
> state'.

Where is that line found?

> Good point,,, you're right Kerry was clearly against tax breaks for
> the wealthy, the group that Bush was caught referring to during a
> private dinner that was videotaped and to whom he referred to as "My
> own people" ---- Got that right, W. Thank goodness there was
> someone looking out for the common man (and still is,,,, as a
> Senator) as John Kerry.

Sorry, but you lose points on this issue. Kerry, *the* richest person in
Congress, paid less in 2003 taxes (both in percentage and in raw dollars)
than Bush (whose net worth is a fraction of Kerry's). Feel free to Google
for their 2003 tax returns and do the math. While you're at it, notice the
difference in charitable donations, too.

Face it: The Democrats have no base outside the urban areas of this country
and their values apparently are out of line with a majority of the voters.
They need to reconsider their platform if they want to appeal to American
voters again.

--
John T
http://tknowlogy.com/TknoFlyer
http://www.pocketgear.com/products_search.asp?developerid=4415
____________________

"Cecil Chapman" > wrote in message >
The gay population has become the new 'coloreds' - get over your
> bigotry. Live and let live.

You pushed a button, Cecil. I see this kind of statement repeated with
sickening frequency

Comparing gay folks to "colored" people is just utter bullsquat. If I were
black, I'd smack people who say this upside the face. If you weren't such a
generally nice feller, this honkey would wanna smack you.

Black folks suffered brutally for hundreds of years right here in America.
Many still suffer today from generations of whip-toting, slave-owning,
water-cannon-wielding white folks denying them basic, God given,
Constitutional rights to equal treatment by their representative government.

Not one should is denying gay folks their constitutional rights to practice
their behavior in private . . . or even in public. They can vote. They can
get elected to office. They can hold powerful positions in the media and
corporate America.

Hell, they can even fly a high wing airplanes.

But they can't get married and they can't fly low wing planes. That's just
they way it is.

To say that "Denying sexually aberrant citizens 'marital' status is akin to
human rights abuses endured by black Americans" is an affront to my, and
your, intelligence.

--
Jim Fisher

*"Sexually aberrant" is defined as a behavior that is outside the norm.
Homosexuality might become a "normal" behavior in the distant future but for
now it is an aberration, pure and simple.

> Michael
> (A confirmed gun control advocate...)
>
Confirmed gun control is using two hands!

"Chris E" > wrote in message ...
> Jim Fisher wrote:
>
>> "Capt.Doug" > wrote in message
>> > Many people didn't vote for Bush as much as they voted against Edwards.
>>
>> Just chiming in here but speak for yourself. I voted FOR Bush and
>> utterly
>> against JOhn KErry.
>
> I voted for Bush before I voted against John Kerry.

Snicker!

"Cecil Chapman" > wrote in message
m
>
> But don't let intelligence or logic, pry you away from your blissful
> ignorance.

It's interesting that the vast majority of the people I hear use this line
(and similar bumper stickers like "Think: It's patriotic.") are quite
liberal. As if they're the only ones capable of reason and logic and
challenging assumptions.

Like oil. It would have been far, far cheaper for us to simply buy the oil
from the "oil for food" program than to invade Iraq if oil were our goal.
For that matter, why not Venezuela? If oil were the goal, Venezuela is
*much* closer to the US and has a less imposing military. *Think* for a
moment and tell me it's logical for us to invade a hostile country half a
globe away for oil when we have oil exporters in our own hemisphere.

No, it sounds Moore like you're toeing the party line.

> I hope one day, people like you will learn to challenge
> and learn more about what they are told as fact FROM ANY SOURCE,,,
> then we will REALLY have a great Nation.

Well, at least we can agree that voters should be educated on the issues and
not just follow the party line.

> A mind is truly a terrible thing to waste..........

You just had to throw in that elitist attitude again. Just when you were
showing some reason, too.

Your guy lost. By a significant margin. Get over it and go flying. :)

--
John T
http://tknowlogy.com/TknoFlyer
http://www.pocketgear.com/products_search.asp?developerid=4415
____________________

I'm the original poster and I approve this response.

"Cecil Chapman" > wrote in message
m...
>
> freaks...... See this is what I mean about people like yourself,,, they
> don't see the connections between their own observations.

No, I just don't see them the same way you do. You can SCREAM in capital
letters all you want and decide that I'm suffering from a terminal case of
cognitive dissonance, but that's not a very mature response, now is it?

Perhaps Republicans in Utah are just as touchy as liberals in Cambridge and
Berkeley. All that ideological conformity makes these places into
ideological veal pens. God forbid you ever have to venture outside that
bubble. Just like David Brooks, who decided he can't even deal with being in
the presence of people who voted for Bush.

Best,
-cwk.

"Roy Epperson" > wrote in message
ink.net
>
> Confirmed gun control is using two hands!

I thought it was "dead center mass"... :)

--
John T
http://tknowlogy.com/TknoFlyer
http://www.pocketgear.com/products_search.asp?developerid=4415
____________________

"Howard Nelson" > writes:

> IMO the election was a contest between the people pulling the wagon and the
> people riding in the wagon.

Mebbe. Mebbe not.

Here's a thought. No doubt many of the people who voted for Dubya
feel strongly about government workers, among other issues. No
increase in government! It's full of incompetents and bozos who never
get rated on their real performance, but just get raises anyway.

Or get re-elected. Dubya--the epitome of everything wrong with the
Government Employee.

> I'm not sure I agree... I think Gephardt lost out because of nothing
> short of a lack of charisma. I don't think people were paying that much

When Gephardt and Lieberman and other Democrats who are toward the central
of the political spectrum "dropped" out, there was a feeling the GWB was
unbeatable. When they dropped by the wayside, further left of center to
dominate the selection process.

Unfortunately / fortunately depending on one's political perspective, the
DNC has not put forward a candidate who could pull voters from the center
and right of center except for Kennedy and Clinton. Dukas was a "old style"
Eastern Liberal. Gore was an "heir apparent" because he serviced with
Clinton but move to the left of center during the campaign and lost the
center votes he needed.

No party can win the poplar vote unless they can pull voters from the other
side of center from their base. Be too far to the extremes of the spectrum
and they loose the cross over vote.

"Matt Whiting" > wrote

>
> Kerry is so hypocritical he makes even Bill Clinton look like an honest
man.
>
>
> Matt

BINGO!!!
--
Jim in NC


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.788 / Virus Database: 533 - Release Date: 11/2/2004

> > One thing - one of so very many things - I learned in my five years of
> > flying is that partisan politics does not fit into the cockpit. Most of
my
> > flight instructors have, I know, been to the right of me politically.

Snip
>
> What prompted this outburst?

Temper tantrum.

--
Jim in NC


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.788 / Virus Database: 533 - Release Date: 11/2/2004

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> Newps wrote:
> >
> >
> > Matt Whiting wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> I'm thinking of moving to a state like yours (SD, right?).
> >
> >
> > Montana. The democrats here couldn't get elected as republicans in
> > Pennsylvania. They'd be too far to the right.
> >
> >
> > I've lived
> >
> >> in PA all my life, but it is becoming such a liberal cesspool that I
> >> may have to retire elsewehere.
> >
> >
> > A Wyoming address would be good and even more conservative than here. No
> > taxes.
>
> Why are all of the conservatives states in places that are cold in the
> winter? My grandfather always said that the cold winters "kept the
> riff-raff out" and I'm beginning to think he was right. :-)
>
>
> Matt

Seems half a dozen or so southern states went republican big time yesterday.
Seems the heat is keeping the riff-raff out also.

> I voted for Bush before I voted against John Kerry.

Mayor Daley, that you?

"Cecil Chapman" > wrote in message
m...
> > Stupidly, they nominated a guy whose political positions were to the
left
> > of Ted Kennedy's, absolutely ensuring a Bush victory.
> >
> > There were many traditional Republicans out here -- myself included --
who
> > would have voted for a conservative Democrat in this election. But
there
> > was just no way for any of us to vote for a guy like Kerry.
> >
> > The moral for the Democrats: Don't ever nominate an ultra liberal to
run
> > for president again.
>
> I have often wondered how some people come to the conclusions that they
do.
> Jay,,, for goodness sake you sound like you are a sock-puppet mouthing the
> words of his puppeteer (Bush - who was famous for the 'Kerry's just like
T.
> Kennedy' line). Kerry was far left? How, where? If anything he was as
> centrist as Clinton was. You'd think he belonged to the Communist party
to
> hear the prattle that is coming off of your tongue.

Even democrats describe Kerry as being left of T. Kennedy. It's pretty
lonely that far out.

Don't forget to take your Kool-Aid with you.

Whoa, Nelly!

Slow down.

I've never voted Republican in my life.

Take me with you.

ak

Cecil, I suggest you read the legislation.

I have a simple .22 rifle. By using a 6" dowel rod, some duct tape, and
the cardboard tube from the center of a roll of toilet paper, I can make it
into a dreaded "assault rifle" of the type addressed in the law that just
expired.

You really should read the law itself, instead of what the Brady people are
saying about it.


Cecil Chapman wrote:
>>He's opposed to private ownership of any firearm except shotguns plugged
>>to three
>>shells. And just where in the Constitution exactly is hunting mentioned?
>>He prattles
>>about "military-style assault weapons" while trying to ban
>>semi-automatics, knowing
>>full well that no military-style assault weapon is semi-automatic.
>
>
> Have you actually read his voting record and what types of weapons each
> respective legislation was referring to? Evidently, not!
>

In rec.aviation.piloting Jay Honeck > wrote:
> I agree with you there, but it's my belief that Bush was ideologically
> vulnerable, and that a guy closer to the center (ala Gebhardt) would have at
> least grabbed enough of the popular vote (and people like me, who weren't
> 100% enthused with Bush) to have tipped the scales his way.

I agree, but Gebhardt was never gonna be the answer. He's way too boring.
He has no carisma. There was no way he would have been able to win.


> The Democrats simply have to figure out a way to select their nominees
> better, if they ever want to win the presidency. They've got to find
> someone who hones closer to the beliefs of mainstream America, without
> alienating their huge (and incredibly vocal) left wing. The Republicans
> have figured this out -- I'm surprised the Democrats haven't.

The problem is that the "Party" (ie, the party leadership) doesn't
neccessarily pick the nominee. A group of individuals decide to run, and
then the primaries pick the nominee.

--- Jay



--
__!__
Jay and Teresa Masino ___(_)___
http://www2.ari.net/jmasino ! ! !
http://www.oceancityairport.com
http://www.oc-adolfos.com

If you apply any intellectual honesty to the campaign rhetoric out of
the Kerry/Edwards duo you would certainly conclude that the facts were
not in total alignment.

No matter how you slice it however, the endless litany of complaints,
criticisms and Monday morning quarterbacking that cam out of Kerry's
mouth is what turned a lot of people off. Anybody can bitch about stuff.

Kerry had 20 years in the senate to do some constructive things what the
hell was he doing all that time (besides wind-surfing and playing golf).



Peter Duniho wrote:
>
> I can't speak for where Bob's coming from, but the truth remains that for
> the most part, people who voted for Bush don't actually have their facts
> straight. This is not disputable.
>
> Pete
>
>

As someone who also voted for Kerry (not with much enthusiasm, though) my I add
my comment, "Don't let the door hit your ass on the way out."

What a bunch of baby boy crap to post on an IFR flying forum.

David Brooks wrote:

> One thing - one of so very many things - I learned in my five years of
> flying is that partisan politics does not fit into the cockpit. Most of my
> flight instructors have, I know, been to the right of me politically. I had
> a most enjoyable flight with CJ - although he has since earned my undying
> enmity by unapologetically using the term "Final Solution" in connection
> with me and people like me, an astonishing thought coming from an avowedly
> religious man, but telling and apt.
>
> But now it seems the nation has, albeit by a slim margin, re-elected a weak,
> hypocritical, murderous coward. Three years ago, when some writers on the
> left started talking about fascism, I thought that an absurd stretch. No
> longer. The parallels are not precise - they never are - but the broad sweep
> and many of the components of a new fascist state are in place. The 48% who
> didn't vote for this disaster keep knocking on my consciousness, but they
> are now feeble and impotent. The thugs are in charge.
>
> That being so, and despite what should be an apolitical setting, I can no
> longer in good faith keep company with a group of which the majority, I
> know, has elected to deliver the country I love, and chose as my home, into
> the hands of Bush and his repressive, regressive masters.
>
> So long. Thanks for all the conversations. You guys have made me a better
> pilot.
>
> -- David Brooks

On Wed, 3 Nov 2004 17:44:52 -0500, "Icebound"
> wrote:

>
>"C Kingsbury" > wrote in message
nk.net...
>>
>> "Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
>> news:k_bid.351511$MQ5.252777@attbi_s52...
>...snip...
>>> The moral for the Democrats: Don't ever nominate an ultra liberal to run
>>> for president again.
>>
>> Hillary Clinton.
>>
>...snip...
>> My dream team is Giuliani-Rice. ...snip...
>
>It would be interesting to see if the (conservative) country is ready for a
>Woman in the White House, or even in the position of "heartbeat away".
>
>That's kind of a "liberal" concept, isn't it???...
>
>
This is a sad comment to make in the greatest country in the world,
but my sense is that any party that nominates a woman for president or
vice-president has conceded the election before it starts. For
reasons that I cannot fathom, this country is not even close to being
ready for that scenario. We'll accept female governors, supreme court
justices, CEO's, etc, but not president or vp. We are way behind the
rest of the world in that regard.

Rich Russell

> To say that "Denying sexually aberrant citizens 'marital' status is akin
> to human rights abuses endured by black Americans" is an affront to my,
> and your, intelligence.

Well put, Jim.

Black Americans are not comfortable with this comparison, as you state. In
fact, NPR recently did a piece on the "black vote" and discovered a larger
than ever percentage of blacks voting Republican, precisely because of this
issue.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

> This is a sad comment to make in the greatest country in the world,
> but my sense is that any party that nominates a woman for president or
> vice-president has conceded the election before it starts.

I disagree. I think America is MORE than ready to elect a conservative
Republican woman president/vice-president.

But Hillary? Never. She polarizes everyone she meets -- there is no middle
ground with her, in large part due to her husband's "legacy."

It's kind of a shame, cuz she's a bright woman in many ways.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Oh yeah, I remember photo shoots of Bill Clinton's "hunting trip"
also... in a futile attempt to convince people that he was a "hunter'.


The fact is that the 2nd amendment has nothing to do with hunting. It
does not enumerate a "right to hunt".

Cecil Chapman wrote:
> >Guns
> He's a hunter, I'm pretty sure they use guns for that (he's not a
> bowhunter).

I think you WAY over estimate the power a president actually has. Probably
because you actually listen to all they promise. :)



-Robert


"David Brooks" > wrote in message
...
> One thing - one of so very many things - I learned in my five years of
> flying is that partisan politics does not fit into the cockpit. Most of my
> flight instructors have, I know, been to the right of me politically. I
had
> a most enjoyable flight with CJ - although he has since earned my undying
> enmity by unapologetically using the term "Final Solution" in connection
> with me and people like me, an astonishing thought coming from an avowedly
> religious man, but telling and apt.
>
> But now it seems the nation has, albeit by a slim margin, re-elected a
weak,
> hypocritical, murderous coward. Three years ago, when some writers on the
> left started talking about fascism, I thought that an absurd stretch. No
> longer. The parallels are not precise - they never are - but the broad
sweep
> and many of the components of a new fascist state are in place. The 48%
who
> didn't vote for this disaster keep knocking on my consciousness, but they
> are now feeble and impotent. The thugs are in charge.
>
> That being so, and despite what should be an apolitical setting, I can no
> longer in good faith keep company with a group of which the majority, I
> know, has elected to deliver the country I love, and chose as my home,
into
> the hands of Bush and his repressive, regressive masters.
>
> So long. Thanks for all the conversations. You guys have made me a better
> pilot.
>
> -- David Brooks
>
>

In article >,
"G.R. Patterson III" > wrote:

>
> He's opposed to private ownership of any firearm except shotguns plugged to
> three
> shells. And just where in the Constitution exactly is hunting mentioned? He
> prattles
> about "military-style assault weapons" while trying to ban semi-automatics,
> knowing
> full well that no military-style assault weapon is semi-automatic.
>
> I have the right to own and fire my Mauser, and, as far as I'm concerned,
> that
> includes the right to be allowed to buy ammunition for it. Kerry tried to ban
> that,
> and we aren't talking anything armor-piercing here.
>

Want to give us a few details, just for the record, about the "well
regulated militia" to which you, personally, belong? (given your focus
on the Constitution, I assume you do) -- Name, location where it's
registered, number of members, just who it's "well regulated" by, that
sort of thing?

On Thu, 04 Nov 2004 14:13:47 GMT, "Jay Honeck"
> wrote:

>> This is a sad comment to make in the greatest country in the world,
>> but my sense is that any party that nominates a woman for president or
>> vice-president has conceded the election before it starts.
>
>I disagree. I think America is MORE than ready to elect a conservative
>Republican woman president/vice-president.
>
>But Hillary? Never. She polarizes everyone she meets -- there is no middle
>ground with her, in large part due to her husband's "legacy."
>
>It's kind of a shame, cuz she's a bright woman in many ways.

Well, Jay, I half agree with you. I do not agree that America is
ready to elect a woman president/vp but I absolutely agree that *when*
it finally does happen, it will be a conservative Republican. I also
agree that Hillary is a very intelligent woman who is patently
unelectable (at least in the context of the offices that we're talking
about).

Just so there is no confusion on my position: when I say the country
is not ready, I am not espousing that as my personal position. I
don't have any problem with a woman president.
Rich Russell

kontiki > writes:

> Oh yeah, I remember photo shoots of Bill Clinton's "hunting trip"
> also... in a futile attempt to convince people that he was a "hunter'.
>
>
> The fact is that the 2nd amendment has nothing to do with hunting. It
> does not enumerate a "right to hunt".

If people's concerns about the 2nd amendment _did_ have anything to do
with hunting then Bush would have lost -- Bush is doing a great job at
letting logging and oil companies into wildnerness where they were
previously not allowed, and this tends to reduce the number of
beautiful places where folks can enjoy hunting.

Chris
--
Chris Colohan Email: PGP: finger
Web: www.colohan.com Phone: (412)268-4751

Cecil Chapman wrote:
>
> I almost forgot,,,,what for goodness sake do you need to be firing
> ammunition as large as the type that the Mauser uses? Are the deer BIGGER
> where you live,,, home protection, if that's what you are thinking, favors a
> shotgun (that's per some cop friends, who would know).

One of the good things about the U.S. is that I don't have to prove a "need" for
something in order to own it. At least that's the way it's supposed to be. In any
case, you obviously have no idea of the capabilities or limitations of an 8mm round
or of deer hunting.

Your police friends are correct about home defense. A shotgun is definitely preferred
over a rifle.

George Patterson
If a man gets into a fight 3,000 miles away from home, he *had* to have
been looking for it.

"Jim Fisher" > wrote in message >...

> But they can't get married and they can't fly low wing planes. That's just
> they way it is.

It's not "just the way it is". You can feel it is wrong if you want,
but it's not an innate truism that gay people can't get married.

> To say that "Denying sexually aberrant citizens 'marital' status is akin to
> human rights abuses endured by black Americans" is an affront to my, and
> your, intelligence.

Why call it sexually aberrant? I agree, that is an affront to your
intelligence.

tb

"Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message et>...

> To be fair, the only reason that there was a surplus is because the country
> got caught up in a technology stock mania. The market was generating
> trillions of short term gains and taxes on those gains is what swelled
> federal and state coffers. Bush entered the white house with millions of
> taxpayers carrying forward losses.

Which would explain why he pushed a taxcut package on calculations
based on those surpluses.

tb

Then sell your car(s) and your airplane... and your snowmobile... boat too.
Lawnmower and chainsaw while you are at it. Of course you won't need
medicine or anything made of plastic either.

Sell it all and move to the wilderness in a tent and live totally off the
land then I might take your rant seriously. Most American voters felt that
Kerry's campaign speeches (Vs. his actions and lifestyle) demostrated the
same level hypocracy.

Christopher Brian Colohan wrote:
> If people's concerns about the 2nd amendment _did_ have anything to do
> with hunting then Bush would have lost -- Bush is doing a great job at
> letting logging and oil companies into wildnerness where they were
> previously not allowed, and this tends to reduce the number of
> beautiful places where folks can enjoy hunting.
>
> Chris

Judah wrote:

<snip>
>
>
> No, I think the biggest problem in this election was simply that there
> was not much difference at all between the two candidates, or if there
> was, it was so clouded by nonessential issues that the general public was
> left to vote on whether they are more comfortable with or without change,
> and not much else.

I think you've hit it exactly right.

If there is one thing I that both sides agree on it is the lack of real,
open discourse on real issues. The "two party" system is really just one
big self serving machine.

One thing that will improve the situation is for all of us "we the people"
to work to allow more third party ideas into the debate. It does us all a
great disservice when not all the voices are heard.

I heard some good ideas from several of the third party candidates (and some
pretty looney ones too). Injecting them into the mix might have forced
Kerry/Bush to be more specific. It certainly would go a long way to
"un-polarizing" the country.

<snip>

--
Frank....H

Christopher Brian Colohan wrote:
>
> If people's concerns about the 2nd amendment _did_ have anything to do
> with hunting then Bush would have lost -- Bush is doing a great job at
> letting logging and oil companies into wildnerness where they were
> previously not allowed, and this tends to reduce the number of
> beautiful places where folks can enjoy hunting.

Well, Kerry has supported several pieces of legislation that closed large areas to
hunting of any sort. In addition, logging tends to open up areas for hunting -- I
used to hunt an area in Georgia that was periodically logged for paper pulp. We used
the logging roads to get in. I expect the hunting would have been pretty lousy for a
few years after they cut, though.

George Patterson
If a man gets into a fight 3,000 miles away from home, he *had* to have
been looking for it.

Cecil Chapman wrote:

<snip>
>
> ?, gay marriage
>
> He stated he was against 'gay marriage' - but in favor of civil unions
> that allowed long-time gay couples the right to visit their partner in the
> hospital, claims to benefits, etc. This is something that I would think
> any reasonable person would think a long-time couple would be entitled to
> (regardless of the sexual orientation. You know the funny thing about this
> kind of bigotry is that it reminds me of what we would hear in the 60's
> "Can't let 'coloreds' have any rights and god-forbid they should be
> allowed
> to marry white-folk". Jeesh,,, doesn't anyone EVER learn from the lessons
> of the past.

<snip>

You're right in your sentiments but like many, misguided by the hype.

It's time we owned up to the real issue(s). It's not about "gay marriage",
it's about whether or not one should be able to marry the one he/she loves.
It's also about whether or not the government should be in the marriage
business at all.

In that regard the Bush campaign clearly clouded the issue. Kerry never said
he was for "gay marriage". Just for civil unions ( a legitimate role for
government considering the way benefits are doled out) and against a
constitutional ammendment. But, just like the Iraq-9/11 connection, most
people believe what they want to.


--
Frank....H

John T wrote:

> "Cecil Chapman" > wrote in message
> m
>>
<snip>
>
>> Good point,,, you're right Kerry was clearly against tax breaks for
>> the wealthy, the group that Bush was caught referring to during a
>> private dinner that was videotaped and to whom he referred to as "My
>> own people" ---- Got that right, W. Thank goodness there was
>> someone looking out for the common man (and still is,,,, as a
>> Senator) as John Kerry.
>
> Sorry, but you lose points on this issue. Kerry, *the* richest person in
> Congress, paid less in 2003 taxes (both in percentage and in raw dollars)
> than Bush (whose net worth is a fraction of Kerry's). Feel free to Google
> for their 2003 tax returns and do the math. While you're at it, notice
> the difference in charitable donations, too.

And clearly stated that he was against the tax cuts even though he benefited
from them. In fact he was, in effect, advocating raising his own taxes.

And while we're on the subject of Kerry's (Theresa's) wealth.... I will
never understand why this was seen as such a negative. He came upon it
honorably. More important, it insulates him from some of the special
interest pressure. After all, how do you bribe a wealthy man?

<snip>
--
Frank....H

"Brien K. Meehan" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Don't forget to take your Kool-Aid with you.
>
Cold-blooded. I like it.

"Adam K." > wrote in message
om...
> Whoa, Nelly!
>
> Slow down.
>
> I've never voted Republican in my life.
>
> Take me with you.
>
> ak

You must be one of those "Independents" I keep hearing about.

Mike Rapoport wrote:

> To be fair, the only reason that there was a surplus is because the
> country
> got caught up in a technology stock mania. The market was generating
> trillions of short term gains and taxes on those gains is what swelled
> federal and state coffers. Bush entered the white house with millions of
> taxpayers carrying forward losses.

But those coffers were swelled. That some were carrying losses is a separate
issue. Unless you think it was up to the government to make those losses go
away.


--
Frank....H

"Terry Bolands" > wrote in message
om...
> "Jim Fisher" > wrote in message
> >...
>
>> But they can't get married and they can't fly low wing planes. That's
>> just
>> they way it is.
>
> It's not "just the way it is". You can feel it is wrong if you want,
> but it's not an innate truism that gay people can't get married.

Ahh, but it is a truism if one accept the absolute fact that "marraige" has
been recognized for thousands of years as a religous tenant. We aren't
talking "unions" but marraige. Governemental support of a marraige between
a man and a woman and, thus, protection of the familial unit is supported
and recognized beacause such support has historically contributed to to
overall, long-term survival of governing bodies.

Man+man and woman+woman does NOT a stable family make and does a government
absolutely no good.

This makes it a truism, Terry. You don't have to like it but a rational
person cannot deny it.

>> To say that "Denying sexually aberrant citizens 'marital' status is akin
>> to
>> human rights abuses endured by black Americans" is an affront to my, and
>> your, intelligence.
>
> Why call it sexually aberrant? I agree, that is an affront to your
> intelligence.

"ab·er·rant (br-nt, -br,-)
adj.
1.. Deviating from the proper or expected course.
2.. Deviating from what is normal; untrue to type.
Man+woman - Expected and even proper.
Man+man - Untrue to type

Gay+high wing: Expected and proper.
Straight+low wing: Expected and proper

Woman+Woman - I don't necessarily have a problem with this (marriage or
adoptive rights-wise) but it is still aberrant.

Until the gay population becomes a significant portion of the population,
gay behavior will be considered "abnormal" and "aberrant." You don't have
to like that fact but it is axiomatic.

--
Jim Fisher

Laura Clayton wrote:

> Bob Chilcoat wrote:
>
>> I absolutely agree with you, Jay. Yet again, I had to vote AGAINST a
>> candidate, rather than FOR one. I just thought Kerry was the least-bad
>> candidate. When Bush opens his mouth, or just looks at the camera, for
>> that
>> matter, the back of my hair goes up. What thinking individual could vote
>> FOR this idiot. I guess my version of the least-bad candidate was the
>> same as only 49.9% of the rest of the country.
>>
>> Apparently you can fool 50% of the people, but there is always a noise
>> function.
>
> I've often wondered why some people feel the need to insult the
> intelligence of
> their fellow voters who simply do not agree with their world views.
> Different people have different experiences in their life, and some people
> even study
> macroeconomics in depth. :) And the same treatment is given to
> candidates. Although he has his moments, everyone knows Bush isn't a great
> orator, but he sure isn't an idiot either.

I agree it is wrong to insult their intelligence. It is/was very difficult
to make informed decisions given the lack of real journalism available.

But Bush plain old did a bad job and was not held accountable for it. He
bungled Iraq. He pandered to big money special interests. He set new
heights of secrecy in government. But most of all his supporters were
willing to overlook the fact that on 9/12/01 the whole world was with us
and two years later you can hardly find anyone that will talk to us on a
diplomatic level.


--
Frank....H

"kontiki" > wrote in message
...
> If you apply any intellectual honesty to the campaign rhetoric out of
> the Kerry/Edwards duo you would certainly conclude that the facts were
> not in total alignment.

I'm not really sure what the point of your post is. I have never said, nor
do I believe, that Kerry was all that great a candidate. I am strictly
addressing the *facts* that Bush had his chance to prove what kind of
President he'd be, and he wound up being a lying, war-mongering one.

Maybe Kerry would've been too...who knows? But at least he'd have been a
*different* lying, war-mongering President.

Neither candidate ran what I felt was a "stellar" race. They both said all
sorts of things that were either outright false or only half-true. But only
one of the candidates lied about the conditions under which he'd attack
Iraq, as well as whether and how Iraq had ties to al-Qaeda at all, and then
later continued to lie about whether he'd lied.

But the real issue here is that the people who voted for Bush, on the whole,
simply either refuse to believe the factual reports that contradict
everything Bush claimed and claims, or failed to pay attention to those
reports when they were made. Contrary to what Laura apparently would like
to believe, this isn't just an issue about "fellow voters who simply do not
agree with [someone else's] world views". The "fellow voters" aren't even
in possession of the facts.

I can respect someone that fully understands what Bush did, and still
decides that in the greater scheme of things we're better off with Bush.
That's fine. But when a person simply doesn't know the facts or refuses to
believe the facts, and then bases a decision on *that*, I find that to be a
clear indication of a lack of intelligence. Just as Bob implies, and to
which Laura took (inappropriate) offense.

Pete

In rec.aviation.ifr Jim Fisher > wrote:

> Ahh, but it is a truism if one accept the absolute fact that "marraige" has
> been recognized for thousands of years as a religous tenant.

So True. But arn't we supposed to have a separation of church and state?
If thats the case what's the state doing in the marriage business?

> Governemental support of a marraige between
> a man and a woman and, thus, protection of the familial unit is supported
> and recognized beacause such support has historically contributed to to
> overall, long-term survival of governing bodies.

I've heard this arguement before. It usually infers that marriage needs
to be governmentally supported for the protection of the children in the
marriage. If you agree to this, then do you agree that the hetrosexual
couples who can't/won't have children need to have the licenses revoked?

> Man+man and woman+woman does NOT a stable family make and does a government
> absolutely no good.

Depends upon your definition of stable family.

Its a poor sampling, but right now the divorce rate between legally
married gay couples is a lot less than hetrosexual couples.


--
Frank Stutzman
Bonanza N494B "Hula Girl"
Hood River, OR

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message news:<K7iid.294493$wV.71039@attbi_s54>...
>
> I agree with you there, but it's my belief that Bush was ideologically
> vulnerable, and that a guy closer to the center (ala Gebhardt) would have at
> least grabbed enough of the popular vote (and people like me, who weren't
> 100% enthused with Bush) to have tipped the scales his way.

If either party is able to nominate a centerist, they have an
excellent shot at the presidency. The problem is that both parties
are largely influenced by their more extreme factions. In the primary
system, these folks are the ones who have the most influence (and
money) to determine who will ultimately represent their party. Also,
look at the difference in voter participation between primaries and
general elections. You know that the hard-core left and right is
going to participate, but I'll wager that the center is
under-represented at that stage. What you end up with in a general
election is usually a choice between the least scary of two extremes.

In this past election, a strong centerist candiate (from either
party) would have resulted in a landslide, rather that what we got.

John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)

I agree with much of what you said except the below assessment:

Peter Duniho wrote:
> But the real issue here is that the people who voted for Bush, on the whole,
> simply either refuse to believe the factual reports that contradict
> everything Bush claimed and claims, or failed to pay attention to those
> reports when they were made.

If this is true, then I submit that people who voted for Kerry and Edwards
refused to believe any factual reports that contradicted many of their claims
as well. Kerry failed to make his case to the vast majority of America.
The exception was the Democratic bastions of the northeast and the left coast.
Those areas of the country would vote for the democratic candidate if it
was Alfred E. Newman, admit it!

When it is all said and done, most Americans felt like they could sleep
better at night voting for Bush (myself included). More of us were voting
*for* a ticket as opposed to *against* one.

"kontiki" > wrote in message
...
> If this is true,

It is true. Factual reports provide the facts, polls provide the
information regarding what people believe.

> then I submit that people who voted for Kerry and Edwards
> refused to believe any factual reports that contradicted many of their
> claims as well.

Perhaps. As far as I know, there is no polling data on that. However,
there are "little lies" and there are "big lies". IMHO, "big lies" are the
ones where thousands of people die. Kerry hasn't made any of those "big
lies".

Pete

AES/newspost wrote:
>
> Want to give us a few details, just for the record, about the "well
> regulated militia" to which you, personally, belong? (given your focus
> on the Constitution, I assume you do) -- Name, location where it's
> registered, number of members, just who it's "well regulated" by, that
> sort of thing?

Using the definitions applicable at the time the Constitution was written, the 2nd
ammendment states that every citizen is allowed to own and carry arms because an
armed citizenry is necessary for the defense of the country. The word "militia" did
not begin to aquire it's current meaning of an adjunct of the U.S. military until the
War Between the States.

Even applying the current meaning of the word "militia", there is no requirement that
a citizen be a member of the militia to own firearms; just a requirement that the
government not prohibit that ownership.

George Patterson
If a man gets into a fight 3,000 miles away from home, he *had* to have
been looking for it.

You're overreacting - cutting off your nose to spite your face.

This community is a lot more diverse than you think it is. It's just
that some of us make it a point to keep religion and politics out of
it, because this isn't the right place. Everyone (myself included)
loses it sometimes, when something just can't be left unanswered, but
it's a bad idea. Best to leave it unanswered anyway, and killfile the
posters who keep doing it. The group becomes a lot easier to read,
and you don't miss much that's useful.

Speaking plainly, political and religious comments don't belong here,
and posting them here is uncivil at best. The nature of the political
and religious content on these newsgroups is probably less of a
reflection of the community as a whole and more a reflection of the
inability of those who express these ideas here to find the proper
place and keep it there. Any conclusions you might draw between the
tendency to post political and religious beliefs where they are
clearly inappropriate and the nature of those beliefs are up to you.

Michael

Frank Stutzman wrote:
>
> In rec.aviation.ifr Jim Fisher > wrote:
>
> > Ahh, but it is a truism if one accept the absolute fact that "marraige" has
> > been recognized for thousands of years as a religous tenant.
>
> So True. But arn't we supposed to have a separation of church and state?

Not as far as the Constitution goes. The Constitution simply forbids Congress from
passing any laws related to religion. The actual wording is "Congress shall make no
law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise
thereof;".

> If thats the case what's the state doing in the marriage business?

The state has been "in the marraige business" for well over 1,500 years. Marraige is
a legal contract and has been ever since inheritance rights began to be important and
codified.

> Its a poor sampling, but right now the divorce rate between legally
> married gay couples is a lot less than hetrosexual couples.

Give them time. As you point out, it's a poor sampling. I've known a number of gay
people, but few for very long. The one person that I've known for decades was married
and divorced. She is currently involved in her third lesbian relationship. If
marraige had been an option, she would have married and divorced her first lesbian
partner and be married to the third one now.

George Patterson
If a man gets into a fight 3,000 miles away from home, he *had* to have
been looking for it.

Personally, I would want a woman with a distinguished military combat
arms command or intel experience. A woman with either of those
backgrounds would eliminate most arguements.

Richard Russell wrote:
> On Thu, 04 Nov 2004 14:13:47 GMT, "Jay Honeck"
> > wrote:
>
>
>>>This is a sad comment to make in the greatest country in the world,
>>>but my sense is that any party that nominates a woman for president or
>>>vice-president has conceded the election before it starts.
>>
>>I disagree. I think America is MORE than ready to elect a conservative
>>Republican woman president/vice-president.
>>
>>But Hillary? Never. She polarizes everyone she meets -- there is no middle
>>ground with her, in large part due to her husband's "legacy."
>>
>>It's kind of a shame, cuz she's a bright woman in many ways.
>
>
> Well, Jay, I half agree with you. I do not agree that America is
> ready to elect a woman president/vp but I absolutely agree that *when*
> it finally does happen, it will be a conservative Republican. I also
> agree that Hillary is a very intelligent woman who is patently
> unelectable (at least in the context of the offices that we're talking
> about).
>
> Just so there is no confusion on my position: when I say the country
> is not ready, I am not espousing that as my personal position. I
> don't have any problem with a woman president.
> Rich Russell

Peter Duniho wrote:
>
> ...polls provide the information regarding what people believe.

Uh huh. Which polls are these? Are they compiled by the same ones
compiling the exit polling data?

--
John T
http://tknowlogy.com/TknoFlyer
http://www.pocketgear.com/products_search.asp?developerid=4415
____________________

Peter Duniho wrote:
>
> But the real issue here is that the people who voted for Bush, on the
> whole, simply either refuse to believe the factual reports that
> contradict everything Bush claimed and claims, or failed to pay
> attention to those reports when they were made.

So, just to confirm, you're saying that anybody voting for Bush failed to
pay attention or chose to ignore "the facts". How do you reconcile that
argument with this statement from the same post?:

> I can respect someone that fully understands what Bush did, and still
> decides that in the greater scheme of things we're better off with
> Bush. That's fine.

If "that's fine", then why can't you just admit that 51% of the voters fully
understood what Bush did and still decided we're better off with him than
Kerry?

Man, talk about sour grapes... :)

--
John T
http://tknowlogy.com/TknoFlyer
http://www.pocketgear.com/products_search.asp?developerid=4415
____________________

G.R. Patterson III wrote:

>
> Using the definitions applicable at the time the Constitution was written, the 2nd
> ammendment states that every citizen is allowed to own and carry arms because an
> armed citizenry is necessary for the defense of the country. The word "militia" did
> not begin to aquire it's current meaning of an adjunct of the U.S. military until the
> War Between the States.
>
Specifically the meaning applicable to the Constitution is the "body of citizens
that might be called to serve in the military." The right to bear arms is
deemed as essential to US readiness.

The term "well regulated" doesn't mean full of government bureaucracy.
The term means ordered, methodical, uniform. It's a common construction
in the English at the time.

"Frank Stutzman" > wrote in message
...
> In rec.aviation.ifr Jim Fisher > wrote:
>
>> Ahh, but it is a truism if one accept the absolute fact that "marraige"
>> has
>> been recognized for thousands of years as a religous tenant.
>
> So True. But arn't we supposed to have a separation of church and state?
> If thats the case what's the state doing in the marriage business?

No, we don't have a seperation of church and state. What we have is a right
for the people to express their own religous beliefs with no intervention by
the state.

"The People" have inserted religous tenants into virtually every law we
have. The People want marraige recognized by their governement and if the
governemnt didn't do so, The People would revolt.

Gay folks may revolt in the future but they simply don't carry enough
political clout to make changes to our way of life and our Constitution.

With the help of a couple of activist judges and elected folks, they may get
their way . . . In the future.

It damn sure ain't gonn happen during the next four years. ;)

>> Governemental support of a marraige between
>> a man and a woman and, thus, protection of the familial unit is
>> supported
>> and recognized beacause such support has historically contributed to to
>> overall, long-term survival of governing bodies.
>
> I've heard this arguement before. It usually infers that marriage needs
> to be governmentally supported for the protection of the children in the
> marriage. If you agree to this, then do you agree that the hetrosexual
> couples who can't/won't have children need to have the licenses revoked?

No. That would be unenforceable. Besides, that would be my definition of a
"union" (which I don't necessairily have a problem with) instead of a
marraige. Folks usually get married with the intent of having kids. Some
don't. Their loss.

All that said, gay people (as a sociological group) aren't even looking for
the right to get married. They are looking for legitmicy and respectability
of the gay lifestyle. American's are coming around to it but just ain't
ready for that yet and the polls and numbers of laws enacted against it show
it.

>> Man+man and woman+woman does NOT a stable family make and does a
>> government
>> absolutely no good.
>
> Depends upon your definition of stable family.
>
> Its a poor sampling, but right now the divorce rate between legally
> married gay couples is a lot less than hetrosexual couples.

Is that right? The heterosexual divorce rate is about .40 percent. What is
it for homosexual marriages, Frank?

--
Jim Fisher

Thank too! :-))


"John T" > wrote in message
m...
> "Roy Epperson" > wrote in message
> ink.net
>>
>> Confirmed gun control is using two hands!
>
> I thought it was "dead center mass"... :)
>
> --
> John T
> http://tknowlogy.com/TknoFlyer
> http://www.pocketgear.com/products_search.asp?developerid=4415
> ____________________
>
>

"John T" > wrote in message
m...
>> ...polls provide the information regarding what people believe.
>
> Uh huh. Which polls are these?

A well-known, well-respected polling organization. Gallup. Maybe you've
heard of them?

> Are they compiled by the same ones compiling the exit polling data?

Gallup is, I believe, one of the companies that do exit polling as well.

Pete

Cecil Chapman wrote:
> >Guns
> He's a hunter,

John Kerry quote. "I take my trusty double barrel 12 gauge, I sneak
around on my belly, I play the wind, you know, I love deer hunting."
Anybody who has actually hunted deer knows what a fool this is.



I'm pretty sure they use guns for that (he's not a
> bowhunter). Just because one doesn't support ownership of AK-47's and
> public access to armor-piercing bullets doesn't make one an enemy to gun
> ownership. In fact, his record as a senator reveals that he has
> consistently supported appropriate gun ownership. I own two shotguns and a
> couple of rifles - don't hunt, but skeet and target shoot. Even still, I
> just don't think the average citizen needs armor-piercing bullets or AK-47's
> (unless you live in remote parts of Alaska <grin>)/.

He has voted against guns every chance he's had.


> ,> taxes
>
> Good point,,, you're right Kerry was clearly against tax breaks for the
> wealthy,


Kerry would whack small businesses with his tax the rich mentality.


>>, the UN.
>
>
> YIKES! Please tell me that you have most of your teeth

All, actually.


and that you don't
> play 'Dueling Banjos' along some remote bayou?

Never been to a bayou.


The United Nations is
> LEFTIST?

Leftist would put it too far to the right. They are communistic.


Do you even know the history and original purpose of the United
> Nations?

Yes, if we could get back to that I would be fine with it.


What was wrong with having a consensus (and some
> help) before blundering into Vietnam... OOPS I mean Iraq?

There's nothing wrong with it. But the right thing to do was go into
Iraq, if the France and Germany still want to screw Iraq on the oil for
food program that's of little consequence to our decision making.

Matt Whiting wrote:


>
>
> Why are all of the conservatives states in places that are cold in the
> winter?

Montana is over 700 miles from east to west by road. You can move to
any climate you want here, just about. Here in Billings we are in a
bananna belt. Often gets in the 50's during the winter. Go up on the
highline(US2) and it is bitterly cold during winter.


My grandfather always said that the cold winters "kept the
> riff-raff out" and I'm beginning to think he was right. :-)

We have our fair share of riff-raff. Remember the Freemen? The
Unabomber? You can walk into the woods here and disappear.

"John T" > wrote in message
m...
> So, just to confirm, you're saying that anybody voting for Bush failed to
> pay attention or chose to ignore "the facts".

I'm not saying at that all. You need reading lessons, I guess.

> If "that's fine", then why can't you just admit that 51% of the voters
> fully > understood what Bush did and still decided we're better off with
> him than Kerry?

Why would I admit something that's not true? 51% did not act as you claim.
Extrapolating from the Gallup data, 18% of the voters fully understood what
Bush did and still decided we're better off with him than Kerry. 33% did
not fully understand what Bush did and yet made the same decision.

Pete

Cecil Chapman wrote:

>>I have the right to own and fire my Mauser, and, as far as I'm concerned,
>>that
>>includes the right to be allowed to buy ammunition for it. Kerry tried to
>>ban that,
>
>
> I almost forgot,,,,what for goodness sake do you need to be firing
> ammunition as large as the type that the Mauser uses?

Do you even know what a Mauser is?

Matt Whiting wrote:


>
> He's only a hunter when there is a camera around.

What's really funny was how god damned stupid he looked in his tan color
Carhart coat he wore the last few weeks of the campaign. Trying to pass
himself off as some kind of working stiff. Damn thing was so new and
stiff it would stand up by itself on the floor. He looked like an idiot
in that thing. Like Dukakis in the tank fer christ sake.

Michael 182 wrote:

> Cecil,
>
> Repeat after me. Never, never, never argue second amendment rights in a
> newsgroup. If you need frustration try teaching your dog not to chase
> rabbits. In fact, you have a better chance of succeeding there than you do
> in converting NRA members.

Right. You would have an easier time banning cars.

"Newps" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Matt Whiting wrote:
>
>
>>
>> He's only a hunter when there is a camera around.
>
> What's really funny was how god damned stupid he looked in his tan color
> Carhart coat he wore the last few weeks of the campaign. Trying to pass
> himself off as some kind of working stiff. Damn thing was so new and
> stiff it would stand up by itself on the floor. He looked like an idiot
> in that thing. Like Dukakis in the tank fer christ sake.
>

If the camera had zoomed out just a little bit, you might have been able to
see the guys in turbans reloading.

Jay Beckman
Chandler, AZ
PP-ASEL

"kontiki" > wrote in message
...
> Then sell your car(s) and your airplane... and your snowmobile... boat
> too.
> Lawnmower and chainsaw while you are at it.

In the grand scheme of things, our cars use an amount of gasoline several
magnitudes higher than all our private airplanes, snowmobiles, lawnmowers
and chainsaws combined. Maybe a better urban and inter-urban public transit
system, (and less marketing emphasis on automobile horsepower) would allow
us to dramatically reduce auto fuel-usage and still enjoy our airplanes,
snowmobiles, lawnmowers and chainsaws for many eons to come.

> Of course you won't need
> medicine or anything made of plastic either.
>

We are over-prescribed anyway :-) .

John T wrote:


>
> Face it: The Democrats have no base outside the urban areas of this country
> and their values apparently are out of line with a majority of the voters.
> They need to reconsider their platform if they want to appeal to American
> voters again.
>

This is driven home by the red/blue map of the country. But get the map
that is divided by county and not just by state. Compare to the same
map for 2000. Another couple of elections like this and the Democratic
party will cease to exist.

Jim Fisher wrote:


>
> Comparing gay folks to "colored" people is just utter bullsquat. If I were
> black, I'd smack people who say this upside the face. If you weren't such a
> generally nice feller, this honkey would wanna smack you.

Black folks do just that. Look for the vote breakdowns against the gay
marriage bills on the ballot.

"Michael" > wrote in message
om...
> You're overreacting - cutting off your nose to spite your face.
>
> This community is a lot more diverse than you think it is. It's just
> that some of us make it a point to keep religion and politics out of
> it, because this isn't the right place. Everyone (myself included)
> loses it sometimes, when something just can't be left unanswered, but
> it's a bad idea. Best to leave it unanswered anyway, and killfile the
> posters who keep doing it. The group becomes a lot easier to read,
> and you don't miss much that's useful.
>
> Speaking plainly, political and religious comments don't belong here,
> and posting them here is uncivil at best. The nature of the political
> and religious content on these newsgroups is probably less of a
> reflection of the community as a whole and more a reflection of the
> inability of those who express these ideas here to find the proper
> place and keep it there. Any conclusions you might draw between the
> tendency to post political and religious beliefs where they are
> clearly inappropriate and the nature of those beliefs are up to you.
>
> Michael

Well put.
--
Jim in NC


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.788 / Virus Database: 533 - Release Date: 11/1/2004

> Uh huh. Which polls are these? Are they compiled by the same ones
> compiling the exit polling data?

This is a prime example of the ignorance of so many people. The exit polls
on election day were actually amazingly accurate. What many people like you
should learn before you start spouting off is what actually happened.
Results from the exit polls was leaked before the polls were complete, i.e.
around 3 or 4 pm, before the polls were closed. The blogging community took
the leak and ran with it. Of course those numbers are not going to be
accurate since the poll is not yet finished! The polling data at the end of
the day was accuate. And yes, the demographic and rationale data is just as
accurate.

> And yes, I did watch ALL of the video-taped hearings, just like you.

The reason you saw the information differently from him is because he was
looking at the data in order to find something wrong, most Bush voters,
however, look at the data first, then make up their minds.

> To be fair, the only reason that there was a surplus is because the
> country got caught up in a technology stock mania. The market was
> generating trillions of short term gains and taxes on those gains is what
> swelled federal and state coffers. Bush entered the white house with
> millions of taxpayers carrying forward losses.


Exactly, thats why it was the first surplus in so long.

Hang on a minute, let me get my violin for some sad music. Better yet let me
get the door for you, then we can play turkey in the straw.

"David Brooks" > wrote in message
...
> One thing - one of so very many things - I learned in my five years of
> flying is that partisan politics does not fit into the cockpit. Most of my
> flight instructors have, I know, been to the right of me politically. I
> had
> a most enjoyable flight with CJ - although he has since earned my undying
> enmity by unapologetically using the term "Final Solution" in connection
> with me and people like me, an astonishing thought coming from an avowedly
> religious man, but telling and apt.
>
> But now it seems the nation has, albeit by a slim margin, re-elected a
> weak,
> hypocritical, murderous coward. Three years ago, when some writers on the
> left started talking about fascism, I thought that an absurd stretch. No
> longer. The parallels are not precise - they never are - but the broad
> sweep
> and many of the components of a new fascist state are in place. The 48%
> who
> didn't vote for this disaster keep knocking on my consciousness, but they
> are now feeble and impotent. The thugs are in charge.
>
> That being so, and despite what should be an apolitical setting, I can no
> longer in good faith keep company with a group of which the majority, I
> know, has elected to deliver the country I love, and chose as my home,
> into
> the hands of Bush and his repressive, regressive masters.
>
> So long. Thanks for all the conversations. You guys have made me a better
> pilot.
>
> -- David Brooks
>
>

> David -- The virtual door is always open when/if you choose to come back.

Let me get my welder, we can fix that.

> Awww David, hang around! Lots of good stuff to be learned here. I've
> lived
> on the earth long enough to recognize that living amongst Cro-Magnons can
> be amusing. Yeah, they unfortunately have the right to vote,,,, but they
> make a few grunts and run in the wall a few times and next thing we know,
> they are running back to 'us' for advice and help.
>
> I, too, am worried about the direction the country will take. For
> instance, I never thought I'd see the day that something like the "Patriot
> Act" would be put into place. Whenever we strip away the very core
> constitutional rights of our people, we do a great harm to our nation and
> allow the terrorists to exact an even more telling blow on our country.
> Fortunately, there are enough men and women of reason who have actively
> gone after things like the Patriot Act, aiding in disabling its' most
> sinister provisions. It will be men and women of reason and good
> conscience that will bring things around, again. I DO believe Kerry was
> one of those people, but thankfully there are many like him - congressmen
> and women that won't allow those precious and hard-fought-for documents to
> be attacked at their very heart; The Constitution of The United States and
> The Bill of Rights - never EVER letting us forget that our Constitution
> begins with those words; "WE, the people......"
>
> Though I can't say I believe in a divine being or UFO's (so, in my
> opinion, we can't depend on extraterrestrials to help us, either) <grin>,
> I can say that I have always believed that in times of dire circumstance
> that people of good conscience will always overcome, persevere and
> succeed - even when things look to be their darkest. This country will
> have it's time to shine, again! :0) I believe that with all my heart!
> You should too!!! ;)
>
> Stay with us! :O)

This is what he is sitting at work wanting to see, pity. Well there is none
from me or 99% of the other posters.

Cecil Chapman wrote:

>>I have the right to own and fire my Mauser, and, as far as I'm concerned,
>>that
>>includes the right to be allowed to buy ammunition for it. Kerry tried to
>>ban that,
>
>
> I almost forgot,,,,what for goodness sake do you need to be firing
> ammunition as large as the type that the Mauser uses? Are the deer BIGGER
> where you live,,, home protection, if that's what you are thinking, favors a
> shotgun (that's per some cop friends, who would know).

Mauser is a type of rifle design, not a caliber. Get a clue.


Matt

Peter Duniho wrote:

> "Laura Clayton" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>>Apparently you can fool 50% of the people, but there is always a noise
>>>function.
>>
>>I've often wondered why some people feel the need to insult the
>>intelligence of their fellow voters who simply do not agree with
>>their world views.
>
>
> Actually, according to the Gallup Poll, among Republicans you can fool over
> 60% of the people.
>
> I can't speak for where Bob's coming from, but the truth remains that for
> the most part, people who voted for Bush don't actually have their facts
> straight. This is not disputable.

This is hilarious. Do you think that people who voted for Kerry had
their facts any more straight?


Matt

John T wrote:

> "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
>
>
>>Why are all of the conservatives states in places that are cold in the
>>winter?
>
>
> They're not. :)
>

Such as?


Matt

Chris E wrote:

> Cecil Chapman wrote:
>
>
>>P.S. You're right, we should all thank Mr. Bush for turning a hard-earned
>>surplus budget (earned under Clinton's rule) into a 4.3 trillion dollar
>>DEFICIT.
>
>
> The surplus budget was a scam, since much of that income turned out to be
> losses due to technology speculation, rampant unchecked corporate fraud in the
> late 90s, and even during the "surplus" social security monies were still
> being siphoned off. The Nasdaq market peaked Jan 2000, and NYSE was dropping
> steadily after March 2000,well before Bush was in office. Also keep in mind
> that Bush had nothing to do with FY 2001 budget, which was in effect through
> 30 Sep 2001. The deficit did have much to do with an attack that happened on
> Sept 2001, you may recall it, and the war on the terrorists. More attacks and
> there wouldn't be much of an economy to worry about deficits. I don't recall
> FDR holding off entering the WWII after Pearl Harbor because of worrying about
> current deficits. We all remember the deficit scare stories from the 1980s,
> and as the economy grew and expanded in time, the tax revenue came back in.
> Deficits now are not extraordinary when properly compared to GDP, historically
> speaking. Current GDP growth is about 4.3%, showing strong growth, especially
> when compared with other Western nations, such as Germany, that hope, hope for
> GDP growth in the 0.2% range this year.
>
> Also remember a deficit is a flow concept, not a stock concept that can be
> inherited.
>

True, but the national debt is passed along.


Matt

Jay Honeck wrote:

> Mark my words: If they nominate Hillary next time around -- as they appear
> to be angling toward -- it will set the Democratic Party back 50 years.
> They won't see the White House again in our lifetime.
>
> And now, back to flying!

I agree on both counts! Now if it just wasn't so cold here in PA already.


Matt

Roy Epperson wrote:

>>Michael
>>(A confirmed gun control advocate...)
>>
>
> Confirmed gun control is using two hands!
>
>

No, it's hitting your target. Many folks can't do that even using both
hands.


Matt

Dave Stadt wrote:

> "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Newps wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>Matt Whiting wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>I'm thinking of moving to a state like yours (SD, right?).
>>>
>>>
>>>Montana. The democrats here couldn't get elected as republicans in
>>>Pennsylvania. They'd be too far to the right.
>>>
>>>
>>> I've lived
>>>
>>>
>>>>in PA all my life, but it is becoming such a liberal cesspool that I
>>>>may have to retire elsewehere.
>>>
>>>
>>>A Wyoming address would be good and even more conservative than here. No
>>>taxes.
>>
>>Why are all of the conservatives states in places that are cold in the
>>winter? My grandfather always said that the cold winters "kept the
>>riff-raff out" and I'm beginning to think he was right. :-)
>>
>>
>>Matt
>
>
> Seems half a dozen or so southern states went republican big time yesterday.
> Seems the heat is keeping the riff-raff out also.
>
>

Good point! I can't take a hot climate so I guess I'm stuck with
Montana and Wyoming... :-) At least the airways shouldn't be so
congested there as here in the northeast.


Matt

AES/newspost wrote:

> In article >,
> "G.R. Patterson III" > wrote:
>
>
>>He's opposed to private ownership of any firearm except shotguns plugged to
>>three
>>shells. And just where in the Constitution exactly is hunting mentioned? He
>>prattles
>>about "military-style assault weapons" while trying to ban semi-automatics,
>>knowing
>>full well that no military-style assault weapon is semi-automatic.
>>
>>I have the right to own and fire my Mauser, and, as far as I'm concerned,
>>that
>>includes the right to be allowed to buy ammunition for it. Kerry tried to ban
>>that,
>>and we aren't talking anything armor-piercing here.
>>
>
>
> Want to give us a few details, just for the record, about the "well
> regulated militia" to which you, personally, belong? (given your focus
> on the Constitution, I assume you do) -- Name, location where it's
> registered, number of members, just who it's "well regulated" by, that
> sort of thing?

You better go back and learn what "well regulated" meant in the time
when the Constitution was written. And while you are at it, learn what
militia meant at that time as well. Hint, the meanings aren't at all
the same as the generally accepted meanings today.


Matt

"Greg Butler" > wrote in message
. ..
> [...] most Bush voters, however, look at the data first, then make up
> their minds.

Which Bush voters? The 64% that still believe that Saddam Hussein was
involved in the 9/11 attacks?

Jim Fisher wrote:

> Gay+high wing: Expected and proper.
> Straight+low wing: Expected and proper

You got this half wrong. Birds are high wing, therefore high wing is
natural and proper. :-)


Matt

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> This is hilarious. Do you think that people who voted for Kerry had their
> facts any more straight?

Yes. The Gallup poll shows that to be the case, at least with respect to
Bush's statements.

Peter Duniho wrote:

> "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>This is hilarious. Do you think that people who voted for Kerry had their
>>facts any more straight?
>
>
> Yes. The Gallup poll shows that to be the case, at least with respect to
> Bush's statements.
>
>

Have you been this deluded for a long time or is it something that
happened recently? Polls are statistics, not facts.


Matt

> No, it's not "spouting off." Those exit polls are what are routinely
> released to various news outlets *during* the polling.

Thats not true. The do not release any of the data to anyone because it
would sway the remaining votes one way.

If it were a matter
> of waiting until the polls closed, there'd be little value to an exit poll
> since the ballots would soon be counted, anyway.

That's how it worked in the 70's and early 80's, but not today. Today the
exit polls are used after the polls have closed so that they do not have to
wait on all the precincts to report in which can take an hour at the least.
With the exit polls, it allows them to call the state as soon as the polls
close.

> But the real issue here is that the people who voted for Bush, on the
> whole,
> simply either refuse to believe the factual reports that contradict
> everything Bush claimed and claims, or failed to pay attention to those
> reports when they were made.

If you are talking about the iraq-terrorism connection then you are dead
wrong. Try reading the 911 commission report before making wild claims.

> Which Bush voters? The 64% that still believe that Saddam Hussein was
> involved in the 9/11 attacks?

Read the 911 commission report and you will understand.

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> Cecil Chapman wrote:
>
> >>I have the right to own and fire my Mauser, and, as far as I'm
concerned,
> >>that
> >>includes the right to be allowed to buy ammunition for it. Kerry tried
to
> >>ban that,
> >
> >
> > I almost forgot,,,,what for goodness sake do you need to be firing
> > ammunition as large as the type that the Mauser uses? Are the deer
BIGGER
> > where you live,,, home protection, if that's what you are thinking,
favors a
> > shotgun (that's per some cop friends, who would know).
>
> Mauser is a type of rifle design, not a caliber. Get a clue.
>
>
> Matt

It's an ACTION design. YOU get a clue.

jls wrote:
> "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Cecil Chapman wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>I have the right to own and fire my Mauser, and, as far as I'm
>
> concerned,
>
>>>>that
>>>>includes the right to be allowed to buy ammunition for it. Kerry tried
>
> to
>
>>>>ban that,
>>>
>>>
>>>I almost forgot,,,,what for goodness sake do you need to be firing
>>>ammunition as large as the type that the Mauser uses? Are the deer
>
> BIGGER
>
>>>where you live,,, home protection, if that's what you are thinking,
>
> favors a
>
>>>shotgun (that's per some cop friends, who would know).
>>
>>Mauser is a type of rifle design, not a caliber. Get a clue.
>>
>>
>>Matt
>
>
> It's an ACTION design. YOU get a clue.
>
>

The Mauser brothers designed a complete rifle. See
http://store.aetv.com/html/product/index.jhtml?id=42655&browseCategoryId=

True, several attributes of the action design are what remains most
memorable and copied to this day, however, it is equally correct to say
that Mauser was a rifle design. It certainly wasn't a caliber, which is
what was the OP implied, and if you had have a brain you would have
known that.


Matt

Matt Whiting wrote:

>
> Good point! I can't take a hot climate so I guess I'm stuck with
> Montana and Wyoming... :-) At least the airways shouldn't be so
> congested there as here in the northeast.

I have been flying since 1996. In my 1000 hours I have seen an
airplane, not in the vicinity of an airport, maybe 10 times.

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> Have you been this deluded for a long time or is it something that
> happened recently? Polls are statistics, not facts.

Polls are facts about statistics.

Are you claiming that the Gallup poll does NOT substantially describe the
working knowledge of people who supported Bush? If so, you're attempting to
contradict centuries of well-established statistical science.

Sounds to me like it's you that's deluded.

Newps wrote:

>
>
> Matt Whiting wrote:
>
>>
>> Good point! I can't take a hot climate so I guess I'm stuck with
>> Montana and Wyoming... :-) At least the airways shouldn't be so
>> congested there as here in the northeast.
>
>
> I have been flying since 1996. In my 1000 hours I have seen an
> airplane, not in the vicinity of an airport, maybe 10 times.

Wow, I've flown south along the west edge of the Washington area
(probably 40 miles from Dulles) and had that many planes called out on
one flight!


Matt

Peter Duniho wrote:

> "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Have you been this deluded for a long time or is it something that
>>happened recently? Polls are statistics, not facts.
>
>
> Polls are facts about statistics.

I'd say just the opposite. Polls are statistics about facts.


> Are you claiming that the Gallup poll does NOT substantially describe the
> working knowledge of people who supported Bush? If so, you're attempting to
> contradict centuries of well-established statistical science.

Yes, most of these polls have significant biases.


> Sounds to me like it's you that's deluded.

You need a new hearing aid then.


Matt

> He said "OF COURSE the exit polls showed Kerry ahead early in the day --
> all
> the Republicans work for a living, and couldn't vote till after 6 PM!"

The funny part is that is exactly right.

On 11/4/04 11:21 AM, in article
, "AES/newspost"
> wrote:

>>
>
> Want to give us a few details, just for the record, about the "well
> regulated militia" to which you, personally, belong? (given your focus
> on the Constitution, I assume you do) -- Name, location where it's
> registered, number of members, just who it's "well regulated" by, that
> sort of thing?

Your interpretation of "well-regulated" has been the subject of many
debates, and is very likely wrong. Google the term a bit and you'll see what
I mean.
--
Jeff 'The Wizard of Draws' Bucchino
Cartoons with a Touch of Magic�
http://www.wizardofdraws.com
http://www.cartoonclipart.com

"Greg Butler" > wrote in message

>
> This is a prime example of the ignorance of so many people. The exit
> polls on election day were actually amazingly accurate. What many
> people like you should learn before you start spouting off is what
> actually happened. Results from the exit polls was leaked before the
> polls were complete, i.e. around 3 or 4 pm, before the polls were
> closed.

No, it's not "spouting off." Those exit polls are what are routinely
released to various news outlets *during* the polling. If it were a matter
of waiting until the polls closed, there'd be little value to an exit poll
since the ballots would soon be counted, anyway.

--
John T
http://tknowlogy.com/TknoFlyer
http://www.pocketgear.com/products_search.asp?developerid=4415
____________________

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message

>
> I'm not saying at that all. You need reading lessons, I guess.

Perhaps. Would you kindly parse this for me and let me know what you really
meant, then?:

<quote>
But the real issue here is that the people who voted for Bush, on the whole,
simply either refuse to believe the factual reports that contradict
everything Bush claimed and claims, or failed to pay attention to those
reports when they were made.
</quote>

--
John T
http://tknowlogy.com/TknoFlyer
http://www.pocketgear.com/products_search.asp?developerid=4415
____________________

Peter Duniho wrote:

>
>
> Polls are facts about statistics.

A poll isn't a fact about anything except the people who participated.
It is an educated guess about some particular subject. The results may
or may not be factual.

Peter Duniho wrote:
>
> Which Bush voters? The 64% that still believe that Saddam Hussein was
> involved in the 9/11 attacks?
>

What survey are you talking about? I find this number hard to believe.

JPH

Newps wrote:
>
> I have been flying since 1996. In my 1000 hours I have seen an
> airplane, not in the vicinity of an airport, maybe 10 times.

I'm based in New Jersey. I've seen at least that many in the last 50 hours of flight
time. You could probably see at least five just running the Hudson VFR corridor once.
Probably get five more doing a low-level run down the coast during banner-towing
season. But even if you avoid known high-traffic areas like those, you'll see plenty
of aircraft.

George Patterson
If a man gets into a fight 3,000 miles away from home, he *had* to have
been looking for it.

jls wrote:
>
> It's an ACTION design. YOU get a clue.

No, this is a K-98 rifle, manufactured by the Mauser Fabrikwerk in 1943 and
sporterized in Suhl, Germany sometime after the war. Mauser rifles do, of course,
have Mauser actions.

George Patterson
If a man gets into a fight 3,000 miles away from home, he *had* to have
been looking for it.

"Michael 182" > wrote in message
news:aShid.352868$3l3.45461@attbi_s03...
> Cecil,
>
> Repeat after me. Never, never, never argue second amendment rights in a
> newsgroup. If you need frustration try teaching your dog not to chase
> rabbits. In fact, you have a better chance of succeeding there than you do
> in converting NRA members.
>
> Michael
> (A confirmed gun control advocate...)

Shame on you. (not about the admonishment - rather being a gun control
nazi)

"David Brooks" > wrote in message
...

> One thing - one of so very many things - I learned in my five years of
> flying is that partisan politics does not fit into the cockpit.
> -- David Brooks

And neither does reading War and Peace between the outer marker and
decision height.................So for THIS reason you decided to post
this idiotic nonsense and bring politics into the cockpit right?
You know Brooks; I had a job once pushing a D18 Beech into Washington
National every night. While I was on vacation, they hired me a new co
pilot. After I got back, I walked into the flight office and everybody
was jabbering about something they thought was real cute. Before I had a
chance to meet the new guy, they pulled me into a side office and asked
me if I minded flying with this new guy because he was black. You know
what I told them? I said I didn't give a rat's ass if he was purple as
long as he could fly!
Flying is flying...period. You'd be well advised if you intend hanging
around this business for any length of time to get this kind of crap
right out of your head. There's no place for it here, and no place for
it in any airplane I'm flying, I'll tell you that. But you're right,
this kind of thinking has absolutely no place even near an airplane. If
you can't handle it on a simple newsgroup, I'd hate to think of you
flying with some co-pilot someday whose politics you didn't agree with!
Man, this is not a healthy attitude for a pilot.
Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
for email; take out the trash

"Jim Fisher" > wrote in message
...
> "Cecil Chapman" > wrote in message >
> The gay population has become the new 'coloreds' - get over your
>> bigotry. Live and let live.
>
> You pushed a button, Cecil. I see this kind of statement repeated with
> sickening frequency
>
> Comparing gay folks to "colored" people is just utter bullsquat. If I
> were black, I'd smack people who say this upside the face. If you weren't
> such a generally nice feller, this honkey would wanna smack you.
>
> Black folks suffered brutally for hundreds of years right here in America.
> Many still suffer today from generations of whip-toting, slave-owning,
> water-cannon-wielding white folks denying them basic, God given,
> Constitutional rights to equal treatment by their representative
> government.
>
> Not one should is denying gay folks their constitutional rights to
> practice their behavior in private . . . or even in public. They can
> vote. They can get elected to office. They can hold powerful positions
> in the media and corporate America.
>
> Hell, they can even fly a high wing airplanes.
>
> But they can't get married and they can't fly low wing planes. That's
> just they way it is.
>
> To say that "Denying sexually aberrant citizens 'marital' status is akin
> to human rights abuses endured by black Americans" is an affront to my,
> and your, intelligence.

Bull**** - why shouldn't they have a right to take advantage of "marriage?"
Also, the gays/queers/fags have suffered brutally. They are still routinely
victims of hate crimes. Now, here I am sounding like a liberal, but tht is
not the case. I would never vote for the socialist, I mean democratic
party, but for all love, why this unbending rule against "marriage" for
queers?

Perhaps that analogy is not quite right, but there is no excuse for the
gubment to take moral stands and deny certain status to some citizens that
are routinely granted to others?


>
> --
> Jim Fisher
>
> *"Sexually aberrant" is defined as a behavior that is outside the norm.
> Homosexuality might become a "normal" behavior in the distant future but
> for now it is an aberration, pure and simple.
>

>> Uh huh. Which polls are these? Are they compiled by the same ones
>> compiling the exit polling data?
>
> This is a prime example of the ignorance of so many people. The exit polls
> on election day were actually amazingly accurate. What many people like
> you should learn before you start spouting off is what actually happened.
> Results from the exit polls was leaked before the polls were complete,
> i.e. around 3 or 4 pm, before the polls were closed.

I heard a terrific explanation of this exit polling phenomenon at the
airport today, from an old gray-head sitting in the terminal building...

He said "OF COURSE the exit polls showed Kerry ahead early in the day -- all
the Republicans work for a living, and couldn't vote till after 6 PM!"

:-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Cecil, very eloquently written. Partisanship has almost become a
religion that gets passed down through the generations. Both republicans
and democrats are guilty of this. This is exactly what needs to change
in our country. It would be easy for a fascist to manipulate this
undying devotion to a political party and get into power.





"Cecil Chapman" > wrote in
m:

>> Stupidly, they nominated a guy whose political positions were to the
>> left of Ted Kennedy's, absolutely ensuring a Bush victory.
>>
>> There were many traditional Republicans out here -- myself included
>> -- who would have voted for a conservative Democrat in this election.
>> But there was just no way for any of us to vote for a guy like
>> Kerry.
>>
>> The moral for the Democrats: Don't ever nominate an ultra liberal to
>> run for president again.
>
> I have often wondered how some people come to the conclusions that
> they do. Jay,,, for goodness sake you sound like you are a sock-puppet
> mouthing the words of his puppeteer (Bush - who was famous for the
> 'Kerry's just like T. Kennedy' line). Kerry was far left? How,
> where? If anything he was as centrist as Clinton was. You'd think he
> belonged to the Communist party to hear the prattle that is coming off
> of your tongue.
>
> Unlike the man whose words you mouth, Kerry didn't pull special favors
> to get into the National Guard to avoid the draft (he VOLUNTEERED for
> duty), Kerry was never arrested DUI, nor was he a cocaine user. While
> our boys were ducking bullets and embroiled in a hopeless conflict -
> Bush was having beer parties with the boys - occasionally remembering
> to show up for National Guard duty. Also, I'll bet you never even
> took the time to watch the footage of Kerry before the special hearing
> on Vietnam (which Bush would refer to often, without even citing a
> single in-context quote from) when Kerry spoke most eloquently without
> political bile of what was wrong with the Vietnam War and how it was a
> mistake. He did this AFTER having been there (something Bush in his
> petty cowardice, never did). He went there, saw how things were going
> and recognized that we (the US) had made a mistake. There wasn't a
> single misspoken word in his speech, back then (you see, unlike you, I
> took it upon myself to view all the footage of the hearing - before
> forming my opinions). Does integrity mean anything to you?
>
> I worry about a country where there are individuals that can be so
> easily molded with a political dogma and never bother to question or
> actively challenge the ideas that are being presented to them. I've
> voted for Democratic candidates, I've voted for Republican,,, you want
> to know why, Jay? Because it is the benefit for the country that
> counts not 'belonging to a club' and following their 'election
> charter' like some mindless automaton.
>
> Your candidate entered a war with an 'enemy' (Saddam) who had not
> attacked us while the fellow that directly attacked us is running
> around, comfortably making videos and apparently eating well. Bush
> claimed he was entering the war to save the people from his cruel
> tyranny - but what about the massive genocide that is going on in
> parts of Africa right now - I haven't heard a peep from Bush about
> that, or China's human rights violations, or North Korea's forming
> nuclear arsenal ---- Ooops,,,, wait,,,,, I get it now,,,,,,,, there
> is no OIL in Africa where innocents are being slaughtered every day,,,
> there is no OIL in North Korea.... Isn't it funny,,,, a president who
> is against stem cell research (which only the ignorant don't know)
> uses embryos and NOT fetuses, has BIG problems with using a frozen
> embryo that must be discarded after a certain length of time,,,, BUT
> he will NOT hesitate to sacrifice living, breathing, human beings in a
> war that had NO business being fought (I'm talking about Iraq here).
> So, he will put living human beings (including women and children
> involved in collateral damage from bombings that go astray) in body
> bags,,, but wait! Don't ya dare touch a frozen embryo in a
> 'cryogenics' freezer. Can YOU say , hypocrisy? God forbid, that you
> are your loved one needs medical aid that some new stem cell
> technology could offer.
>
> If there is any hope for our country, it will be when people learn to
> abandon their mindless following of party affiliation and do as I (and
> others) do; simply vote for the best man/woman for the job.
>
> But don't let intelligence or logic, pry you away from your blissful
> ignorance. I hope one day, people like you will learn to challenge
> and learn more about what they are told as fact FROM ANY SOURCE,,,
> then we will REALLY have a great Nation.
>
> A mind is truly a terrible thing to waste..........
>
>

On Wed, 3 Nov 2004 10:55:51 -0800, "David Brooks"
> wrote:

>One thing - one of so very many things - I learned in my five years of
>flying is that partisan politics does not fit into the cockpit.
<snip>
Nor does it belong in newsgroups not devoted to it.

If this was meant as a troll, it sure worked. 181 posts so far.

I agree with Michael (Damn! Did I just say that?). Politics and
religion belong on their own groups. Often it's difficult to keep
quiet when some one makes a strong statement as to one or the other
and that is what creates threads with 181 posts. I have to plead
guilty to having retorted to a few political posts on the groups this
year, but not many. At least not many compared to the number of on
topic posts I make.

Most of us get along quite well on here *most* of the time, although
probably a lot fewer would be able to get along in real life, or IRL
as the simmers call it.<:-))

I try to remember that what ever my religious and political views,
there are probably as least as many who would take the other side of
the argument.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

"Greg Butler" > wrote in message

>
>> But the real issue here is that the people who voted for Bush, on the
>> whole,
>> simply either refuse to believe the factual reports that contradict
>> everything Bush claimed and claims, or failed to pay attention to
>> those reports when they were made.
>
> If you are talking about the iraq-terrorism connection then you are
> dead wrong. Try reading the 911 commission report before making wild
> claims.

That was Peter's statement, not mine. I've made no claims one way or
another about Saddam/9-11.

--
John T
http://tknowlogy.com/TknoFlyer
http://www.pocketgear.com/products_search.asp?developerid=4415
____________________

"John T" > wrote in message>>
> That was Peter's statement, not mine. I've made no claims one way or
> another about Saddam/9-11.

That was bad quoting on my part. I knew it was his, put it on the wrong
thread I guess.

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message

>
>> They're not. :)
>
> Such as?

Assuming you were looking for states that weren't quite so cold in the
winter there's Georgia, for starters.
Then there's Alabama, Mississippi, South Carolina, North Carolina,
Tennessee, Kentucky, Louisiana, Texas, New Mexico, Arizona - even Florida
(at least away from Miami/Ft. Lauderdale/Palm Beach).

If you're looking for a conservative home that's not hot in the summer, you
might consider splitting time between Alaska and one of the Southern states.
:)

--
John T
http://tknowlogy.com/TknoFlyer
http://www.pocketgear.com/products_search.asp?developerid=4415
____________________

"Greg Butler" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> > He said "OF COURSE the exit polls showed Kerry ahead early in the day --
> > all
> > the Republicans work for a living, and couldn't vote till after 6 PM!"
>
> The funny part is that is exactly right.

Now wait a minute.........it's hard work sitting at home waiting for the
government check to show up.

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> John T wrote:
>
> > "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
> >
> >
> >>Why are all of the conservatives states in places that are cold in the
> >>winter?
> >
> >
> > They're not. :)
> >
>
> Such as?

Most of the south?

>
>
> Matt
>

On Thu, 04 Nov 2004 14:32:43 -0700, Newps wrote:

> Do you even know what a Mauser is?

A cat that keeps the rodent population down? ;-)

--
Steve
E-mail: steve at flyingtigerwebdesign dot com
Hong Kong, 05/11/2004 13:48:10

"John T" > wrote in message
m...
> Perhaps. Would you kindly parse this for me and let me know what you
> really > meant, then?

I meant exactly what I wrote. Nowhere in the statement that you quoted is
anything that could be construed as meaning "anybody voting for Bush failed
to pay attention or chose to ignore the facts". As I've stated elsewhere,
some 36% of the people voting for Bush did apparently have the facts.
"Anybody voting for Bush" would imply 0%, and I've not once said that.

Pete

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
>> Polls are facts about statistics.
>
> I'd say just the opposite. Polls are statistics about facts.

Statistics are always about facts. Polls are the facts about the
statistics.

> Yes, most of these polls have significant biases.

Such as?

"Newps" > wrote in message
...
>> Polls are facts about statistics.
>
> A poll isn't a fact about anything except the people who participated.

The poll itself is a fact about the statistical sample taken. Which is
exactly what I said (though apparently not in a verbose enough way for some
of you).

If you feel you have some good reason to dispite the Gallup poll results,
I'm all ears. If all you can come up with is "well, there's a 0.000000001%
chance that the poll is incorrect", then while that may be perfectly true,
it's a pretty useless statement.

The FACT remains that there's a much larger chance that the poll correctly
describes the overall electorate than that it doesn't.

Pete

"J Haggerty" > wrote in message
news:8RBid.98486$tU4.72620@okepread06...
> What survey are you talking about? I find this number hard to believe.

Sorry, you're right. I misremembered. It's "only" 62%. Anywhere, here's
one article:
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000653667

Google can easily find you as many other references to the poll as you'd
like to see.

On Fri, 05 Nov 2004 03:54:37 GMT, "Dudley Henriques"
> wrote:

>
>"David Brooks" > wrote in message
...
>
>> One thing - one of so very many things - I learned in my five years of
>> flying is that partisan politics does not fit into the cockpit.
>> -- David Brooks
>
>And neither does reading War and Peace between the outer marker and
>decision height.................So for THIS reason you decided to post
>this idiotic nonsense and bring politics into the cockpit right?
<snip>
> But you're right,
>this kind of thinking has absolutely no place even near an airplane. If
>you can't handle it on a simple newsgroup, I'd hate to think of you
>flying with some co-pilot someday whose politics you didn't agree with!
>Man, this is not a healthy attitude for a pilot.

That's a lot of good common sense Dudley, but with his attitude, I
think he probably made his statement and then left so he wouldn't hear
any rational rebuttals.

I do agree, that any one with that attitude should not be doing
something that requires calm and rational thinking under pressure such
as flying.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

>Dudley Henriques
>International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
>for email; take out the trash
>
>

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> AES/newspost wrote:
>
> > In article >,
> > "G.R. Patterson III" > wrote:
> >
> >
> >>He's opposed to private ownership of any firearm except shotguns plugged
to
> >>three
> >>shells. And just where in the Constitution exactly is hunting mentioned?
He
> >>prattles
> >>about "military-style assault weapons" while trying to ban
semi-automatics,
> >>knowing
> >>full well that no military-style assault weapon is semi-automatic.
> >>
> >>I have the right to own and fire my Mauser, and, as far as I'm
concerned,
> >>that
> >>includes the right to be allowed to buy ammunition for it. Kerry tried
to ban
> >>that,
> >>and we aren't talking anything armor-piercing here.
> >>
> >
> >
> > Want to give us a few details, just for the record, about the "well
> > regulated militia" to which you, personally, belong? (given your focus
> > on the Constitution, I assume you do) -- Name, location where it's
> > registered, number of members, just who it's "well regulated" by, that
> > sort of thing?
>
> You better go back and learn what "well regulated" meant in the time
> when the Constitution was written. And while you are at it, learn what
> militia meant at that time as well. Hint, the meanings aren't at all
> the same as the generally accepted meanings today.
>
>


Please provide a referance to back up your etymological evolution of these
terms.

Earl G.

On Fri, 05 Nov 2004 02:58:32 -0500, Roger wrote:

> That's a lot of good common sense Dudley

I thought so too.
--
Steve
E-mail: steve at flyingtigerwebdesign dot com
Hong Kong, 05/11/2004 19:47:44

In article >, "Peter Duniho"
> wrote:

> The FACT remains that there's a much larger chance that the poll
> correctly
> describes the overall electorate than that it doesn't.

you have much more faith in polls than I do.

--
Bob Noel
Seen on Kerry's campaign airplane: "the real deal"
oh yeah baby.

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
> "Newps" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> Polls are facts about statistics.
> >
> > A poll isn't a fact about anything except the people who participated.
>
> The poll itself is a fact about the statistical sample taken. Which is
> exactly what I said (though apparently not in a verbose enough way for
some
> of you).
>
> If you feel you have some good reason to dispite the Gallup poll results,
> I'm all ears. If all you can come up with is "well, there's a
0.000000001%
> chance that the poll is incorrect", then while that may be perfectly true,
> it's a pretty useless statement.
>
> The FACT remains that there's a much larger chance that the poll correctly
> describes the overall electorate than that it doesn't.

You would be hard pressed to prove that. Polls are at best one step above a
WAG.

> Pete
>
>

"Jim Fisher" > wrote
> "Terry Bolands" > wrote
>> "Jim Fisher" > wrote
>>
>>> But they can't get married and they can't fly low wing
>>> planes. That's just they way it is.
>>
>> It's not "just the way it is". You can feel it is wrong if
>> you want, but it's not an innate truism that gay people can't
>> get married.
>
> Ahh, but it is a truism if one accept the absolute fact that
> "marraige" has been recognized for thousands of years as a
> religous tenant. We aren't talking "unions" but marraige.

That doesn't make it a truism at all. There are plenty of
non-religious individuals who still believe in the institution of
marriage. Civil servants can perform marriages.

> Governemental support of a marraige between a man and a woman
> and, thus, protection of the familial unit is supported and
> recognized beacause such support has historically contributed
> to to overall, long-term survival of governing bodies.

> Man+man and woman+woman does NOT a stable family make and does
> a government absolutely no good.

You presenting this as a fact, but it is only an opinion.

> This makes it a truism, Terry. You don't have to like it but
> a rational person cannot deny it.

I disagree. This is a debatable issue, and debatable by fully
rational persons.

Beyond this, doesn't the practice of same-sex marriages in some
European countries prove that it isn't a truism?

I think the line between the religious and civil role is fairly
vague. I, personally, am in favor of same-sex marriage, but I
think I could be in favor a situation in which marriage is soley
a religious rite and civil unions are a, well, civil
distinction. Marriage would only have a religious significance
and civil unions would have legal/financial/etc significance.
Any given religion coud define marriage however they liked, but
any two people could get a civil union.

>>> To say that "Denying sexually aberrant citizens 'marital'
>>> status is akin to human rights abuses endured by black
>>> Americans" is an affront to my, and your, intelligence.
>>
>> Why call it sexually aberrant? I agree, that is an affront
>> to your intelligence.
>
> "abeeeeeeerrrrrrrrant (br-nt, -br,-)
> adj.
> 1.. Deviating from the proper or expected course.
> 2.. Deviating from what is normal; untrue to type.
> Man+woman - Expected and even proper.
> Man+man - Untrue to type
>
> Gay+high wing: Expected and proper.
> Straight+low wing: Expected and proper
>
> Woman+Woman - I don't necessarily have a problem with this
> (marriage or adoptive rights-wise) but it is still aberrant.
>
> Until the gay population becomes a significant portion of the
> population, gay behavior will be considered "abnormal" and
> "aberrant." You don't have to like that fact but it is
> axiomatic.

No, it is just different. Calling it aberrant puts the judgment
of 'improper' on it. Your opinions aren't axiomatic, Jim. Most
people in the US used to look on interracial marriage as
aberrant. Opinions have changed...not axiomatic.

tb

> know, has elected to deliver the country I love, and chose as my home, into
> the hands of Bush and his repressive, regressive masters.
>

Basically, there are 4 corners of politics:

1. Conservative: restrict personal behavior; economic freedom
2. Liberal: personal freedom; restrict economic freedom
3. Classical Liberal: personal freedom; economic freedom
4. Authoritarian: restrict personal behavior; restrict economic freedom.

Since you are a liberal, you see the repressive aspects of Bush, but you
fail to see the repressive side of liberalism.

A choice between conservative vs liberal is typically a choice of what
kind of repression you want. Since both sides are for what the other is
against, there is what appears to be a great divide. Wouldn't it be
better to be a classical liberal and return to the freedoms that our
founding father's intended? There doesn't have to be a choice between
one of only two options.

Now, why did I respond to what appears to be an off topic discussion.
Politics DOES belong in the cockpit. We pilots need to be concerned
when either party attacks our freedom in the cockpit. Attempts have
been made that severly restrict GA, but a Hertz Rental truck could be
used to inflict far greater destruction. The AOPA had been outstanding
in fighting for absurd regulations.

If you are not a member of AOPA, find out what good they have
performed. Think about joining.

Peter Duniho wrote:

>
> The FACT remains that there's a much larger chance that the poll correctly
> describes the overall electorate than that it doesn't.

This statement is correct. There is a chance the poll represents the
actual fact. Depending on how accurate you want to be you can also say
the poll never correctly describes the actual fact. The poll will
always get you close, how close depends on the sample size. The same
science that tells you how close also tells you it will never be exactly
right.

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:vOqid.353905$MQ5.219330@attbi_s52...
>
> It's kind of a shame, cuz she's a bright woman in many ways.

Bright? Yes, but that's a morally-neutral statement.

-cwk.

Earl Grieda wrote:


>>You better go back and learn what "well regulated" meant in the time
>>when the Constitution was written. And while you are at it, learn what
>>militia meant at that time as well. Hint, the meanings aren't at all
>>the same as the generally accepted meanings today.
>>
>>
>
>
>
> Please provide a referance to back up your etymological evolution of these
> terms.

Read your history for christs sake. The militia was not an organized
army like we have today, the original framers wanted no part of a United
States Army. They thought that if things got bad the US Army would
basically have a coup and take over the country. Every able bodied
adult male was considered to be the militia.

Dave Stadt wrote:


>
> You would be hard pressed to prove that. Polls are at best one step above a
> WAG.

Science proves it. But, everything has to go right for the poll to
achieve that margin of error. First you must get a represenative random
sample. This rarely happens, there's always a little error here.
Second the questions must not be skewed one way or the other. Third,
the people must tell the truth. This also never happens. They always
give the margin of error when you see a poll, this is a theoretical
number that cannot be reached because no poll will ever be truly random,
somebody always lies, or says they're someone their not, etc. One of
the pollsters on TV this week said that to get the 850+ responses for a
+-3% poll they had to call over 10,000 people. With those kinds of
problems no way can a poll be anymore than a guess.

"m pautz" > wrote in message
news:lTMid.48559$HA.35856@attbi_s01...
>
> Wouldn't it be better to be a classical liberal and return to the
> freedoms that our founding father's intended? There doesn't have to be a
> choice between one of only two options.
>

You can. Vote Libertarian.

www.lp.org

"Newps" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Earl Grieda wrote:
>
>
> >>You better go back and learn what "well regulated" meant in the time
> >>when the Constitution was written. And while you are at it, learn
> >>what militia meant at that time as well. Hint, the meanings aren't
> >>at all the same as the generally accepted meanings today.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > Please provide a referance to back up your etymological evolution
> > of these terms.
>
> Read your history for christs sake. The militia was not an
> organized army like we have today, the original framers wanted no part
> of a United States Army. They thought that if things got bad the US
> Army would basically have a coup and take over the country. Every
> able bodied adult male was considered to be the militia.

I am not the one making the claim. It is the responsibility of the person
making the claim to prove it, or state that it is his opinion.

However, since the meaning of words do evolve then it certainly is possible
that what this person claims is true. But in that case we need to use the
definition of "Arms" as it was defined when the Bill of Rights was written.

Earl G

Earl Grieda wrote:
>
> However, since the meaning of words do evolve then it certainly is possible
> that what this person claims is true. But in that case we need to use the
> definition of "Arms" as it was defined when the Bill of Rights was written.

That would be whatever weaponry is used by a modern military force.

George Patterson
If a man gets into a fight 3,000 miles away from home, he *had* to have
been looking for it.

"Peter Duniho" > writes:
> "Newps" > wrote:

> >> Polls are facts about statistics.
> >
> > A poll isn't a fact about anything except the people who participated.
>
> The poll itself is a fact about the statistical sample taken. Which is
> exactly what I said (though apparently not in a verbose enough way for some
> of you).
>
> If you feel you have some good reason to dispite the Gallup poll results,
> I'm all ears. If all you can come up with is "well, there's a 0.000000001%
> chance that the poll is incorrect", then while that may be perfectly true,
> it's a pretty useless statement.
>
> The FACT remains that there's a much larger chance that the poll correctly
> describes the overall electorate than that it doesn't.

My favorite statistics story: I was reading an article about
weather prediction in which NOAA claimed about 75% accuracy
in their predictions. You can say that tomorrow's weather
will be the same as today's and be about 90% accurate in most
parts of the world.

> . . . I can no longer in good faith keep company with a group of
which the majority, I
> know, has elected to deliver the country I love . . .

I always understood that this group was international.

Tony

Exactly. "Well regulated" back then meant "well trained" .. trained in
the use of firearms... not regulated by government laws. If they felt like
more laws and regulations would enhance the "security of a free state"
then they would have created a bunch of laws right then and there.


Wizard of Draws wrote:
>
> Your interpretation of "well-regulated" has been the subject of many
> debates, and is very likely wrong. Google the term a bit and you'll see what
> I mean.

In article >,
David Brooks > wrote:
> So long. Thanks for all the conversations. You guys have made me a
> better pilot.

If you want to enact change, you can't run away.

I'm in a rather strange political group, as none of the parties really
make sense to me. I believe in very wide personal liberty and equal
rights. Gays should be able to get married, people should be able to
own big scary guns as long as they don't shoot people with them, and
women should be able to choose what to do with their bodies.

I believe religious issues should not enter government at all, because
that is the only way to keep from legislating that religion's beliefs
over the common good. I wish it was stated in the Constitution that the
U.S. is a secular state that nevertheless welcomes its population to
hold whatever religious beliefs they wish.

However, I don't believe the Libertarian party isn't really a good fit
for me, because I don't believe that competitive pressure is enough to
keep businesses from doing anything they want to maximize their profit.
Somehow they need to be held accountable to certain social standards
(much like people are), and it has been quite obvious that the
population at large will not punish a company violating these standards
by not buying their stuff.

I don't know what this makes me - Libertarian, Green, Democrat, stinking
Liberal, perhaps a Commie Mutant Traitor? Definitely not a Republican
as that party currently stands.

I abhorred Bush and his policies, so I didn't vote for him. A lot of
people disagreed with me. While I think that's disappointing, storming
out isn't going to fix anything.

So if you want change, you need to work at it. Talk calmly and
rationally, and preferably face-to-face, with people who disagree with
you. Maybe you'll be able to convince them of some of your viewpoints.
(Maybe they'll be able to convince you of some of theirs!) Maybe if
enough people do this things will be different in two/four years.

But don't do it on this forum. My advice: when you see the beginnings
of a political or religious scuffle, do what I should have done instead
of writing all this - kill the subthread, move on with life. :)

-bcd
--
*** Brian Downing <bdowning at lavos dot net>

In article <wBTid.1877$5K2.15@attbi_s03>,
Brian Downing > wrote:
> However, I don't believe the Libertarian party isn't really a good fit
> for me

"is really a good fit" is what I meant obviously.

Way to be double negative.

-bcd

John T wrote:

> "Greg Butler" > wrote in message
>
>
>>This is a prime example of the ignorance of so many people. The exit
>>polls on election day were actually amazingly accurate. What many
>>people like you should learn before you start spouting off is what
>>actually happened. Results from the exit polls was leaked before the
>>polls were complete, i.e. around 3 or 4 pm, before the polls were
>>closed.
>
>
> No, it's not "spouting off." Those exit polls are what are routinely
> released to various news outlets *during* the polling. If it were a matter
> of waiting until the polls closed, there'd be little value to an exit poll
> since the ballots would soon be counted, anyway.
>

To me the concept of an exit poll is asinine. What difference does it
make? Just count the votes.


Matt

Richard Hertz wrote:

> "Jim Fisher" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>"Cecil Chapman" > wrote in message >
>>The gay population has become the new 'coloreds' - get over your
>>
>>>bigotry. Live and let live.
>>
>>You pushed a button, Cecil. I see this kind of statement repeated with
>>sickening frequency
>>
>>Comparing gay folks to "colored" people is just utter bullsquat. If I
>>were black, I'd smack people who say this upside the face. If you weren't
>>such a generally nice feller, this honkey would wanna smack you.
>>
>>Black folks suffered brutally for hundreds of years right here in America.
>>Many still suffer today from generations of whip-toting, slave-owning,
>>water-cannon-wielding white folks denying them basic, God given,
>>Constitutional rights to equal treatment by their representative
>>government.
>>
>>Not one should is denying gay folks their constitutional rights to
>>practice their behavior in private . . . or even in public. They can
>>vote. They can get elected to office. They can hold powerful positions
>>in the media and corporate America.
>>
>>Hell, they can even fly a high wing airplanes.
>>
>>But they can't get married and they can't fly low wing planes. That's
>>just they way it is.
>>
>>To say that "Denying sexually aberrant citizens 'marital' status is akin
>>to human rights abuses endured by black Americans" is an affront to my,
>>and your, intelligence.
>
>
> Bull**** - why shouldn't they have a right to take advantage of "marriage?"
> Also, the gays/queers/fags have suffered brutally. They are still routinely
> victims of hate crimes. Now, here I am sounding like a liberal, but tht is
> not the case. I would never vote for the socialist, I mean democratic
> party, but for all love, why this unbending rule against "marriage" for
> queers?
>
> Perhaps that analogy is not quite right, but there is no excuse for the
> gubment to take moral stands and deny certain status to some citizens that
> are routinely granted to others?

The government takes moral stands all of the time. A good share of our
laws are based on morality. Things such as not killing your neighbors.


Matt

Jay Honeck wrote:

>>>Uh huh. Which polls are these? Are they compiled by the same ones
>>>compiling the exit polling data?
>>
>>This is a prime example of the ignorance of so many people. The exit polls
>>on election day were actually amazingly accurate. What many people like
>>you should learn before you start spouting off is what actually happened.
>>Results from the exit polls was leaked before the polls were complete,
>>i.e. around 3 or 4 pm, before the polls were closed.
>
>
> I heard a terrific explanation of this exit polling phenomenon at the
> airport today, from an old gray-head sitting in the terminal building...
>
> He said "OF COURSE the exit polls showed Kerry ahead early in the day -- all
> the Republicans work for a living, and couldn't vote till after 6 PM!"
>
> :-)

That's a keeper!


Matt

Greg Butler wrote:

>>He said "OF COURSE the exit polls showed Kerry ahead early in the day --
>>all
>>the Republicans work for a living, and couldn't vote till after 6 PM!"
>
>
> The funny part is that is exactly right.
>
>

Not entirely. I'm a working Republican and I voted at 7 AM on my way TO
work. :-)


Matt

Peter Duniho wrote:

> "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>>Polls are facts about statistics.
>>
>>I'd say just the opposite. Polls are statistics about facts.
>
>
> Statistics are always about facts. Polls are the facts about the
> statistics.

No, a fact is an invariant. If you take a poll and then take another
poll, you'll get a different result. That isn't factual, sorry.

>
>>Yes, most of these polls have significant biases.
>
>
> Such as?

Such as who they talk to, where they conduct the poll, what time they
poll (as mentioned earlier, the working Republicans may not vote until
after the welfare liberals are done), and many other factors.


Matt

Earl Grieda wrote:

> "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>AES/newspost wrote:
>>
>>
>>>In article >,
>>> "G.R. Patterson III" > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>He's opposed to private ownership of any firearm except shotguns plugged
>
> to
>
>>>>three
>>>>shells. And just where in the Constitution exactly is hunting mentioned?
>
> He
>
>>>>prattles
>>>>about "military-style assault weapons" while trying to ban
>
> semi-automatics,
>
>>>>knowing
>>>>full well that no military-style assault weapon is semi-automatic.
>>>>
>>>>I have the right to own and fire my Mauser, and, as far as I'm
>
> concerned,
>
>>>>that
>>>>includes the right to be allowed to buy ammunition for it. Kerry tried
>
> to ban
>
>>>>that,
>>>>and we aren't talking anything armor-piercing here.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Want to give us a few details, just for the record, about the "well
>>>regulated militia" to which you, personally, belong? (given your focus
>>>on the Constitution, I assume you do) -- Name, location where it's
>>>registered, number of members, just who it's "well regulated" by, that
>>>sort of thing?
>>
>>You better go back and learn what "well regulated" meant in the time
>>when the Constitution was written. And while you are at it, learn what
>>militia meant at that time as well. Hint, the meanings aren't at all
>>the same as the generally accepted meanings today.
>>
>>
>
>
>
> Please provide a referance to back up your etymological evolution of these
> terms.
>
> Earl G.
>
>

That would be a reference, with three e's. Since you are too lazy to do
your own research, here's a little to get you started:

http://www.constitution.org/mil/cs_milit.htm

http://www.post-gazette.com/forum/20001008edkelly5.asp

http://www.nitewavesherrym.com/militia/militia.html


Do you think you can handle "well regulated" on your own?


Matt

Newps wrote:

>
>
> Earl Grieda wrote:
>
>
>>> You better go back and learn what "well regulated" meant in the time
>>> when the Constitution was written. And while you are at it, learn what
>>> militia meant at that time as well. Hint, the meanings aren't at all
>>> the same as the generally accepted meanings today.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Please provide a referance to back up your etymological evolution of
>> these
>> terms.
>
>
> Read your history for christs sake. The militia was not an organized
> army like we have today, the original framers wanted no part of a United
> States Army. They thought that if things got bad the US Army would
> basically have a coup and take over the country. Every able bodied
> adult male was considered to be the militia.

Yes, it took me all of 5 seconds to find a boat load of references that
explain this is great detail.


Matt

Earl Grieda wrote:

> "Newps" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>
>>Earl Grieda wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>>You better go back and learn what "well regulated" meant in the time
>>>>when the Constitution was written. And while you are at it, learn
>>>>what militia meant at that time as well. Hint, the meanings aren't
>>>>at all the same as the generally accepted meanings today.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Please provide a referance to back up your etymological evolution
>>>of these terms.
>>
>>Read your history for christs sake. The militia was not an
>>organized army like we have today, the original framers wanted no part
>>of a United States Army. They thought that if things got bad the US
>>Army would basically have a coup and take over the country. Every
>>able bodied adult male was considered to be the militia.
>
>
> I am not the one making the claim. It is the responsibility of the person
> making the claim to prove it, or state that it is his opinion.
>
> However, since the meaning of words do evolve then it certainly is possible
> that what this person claims is true. But in that case we need to use the
> definition of "Arms" as it was defined when the Bill of Rights was written.

I agree. Private ownership of cannons was fairly common on those days
and they were about the biggest and baddest weapons available to anyone
then.


Matt

G.R. Patterson III wrote:

>
> Earl Grieda wrote:
>
>>However, since the meaning of words do evolve then it certainly is possible
>>that what this person claims is true. But in that case we need to use the
>>definition of "Arms" as it was defined when the Bill of Rights was written.
>
>
> That would be whatever weaponry is used by a modern military force.
>
> George Patterson
> If a man gets into a fight 3,000 miles away from home, he *had* to have
> been looking for it.

Yes, Earl really should learn when to stop digging the hole he's in.


Matt

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> Greg Butler wrote:
>
>>>He said "OF COURSE the exit polls showed Kerry ahead early in the day --
>>>all
>>>the Republicans work for a living, and couldn't vote till after 6 PM!"
>>
>>
>> The funny part is that is exactly right.
>
> Not entirely. I'm a working Republican and I voted at 7 AM on my way TO
> work. :-)

Obviously there are exceptions ;)

> No, a fact is an invariant. If you take a poll and then take another
> poll, you'll get a different result. That isn't factual, sorry.

Actually a poll is a statement of fact: the people polled did in fact say
what the poll says. The problem arises with how you extend the poll to
represent the unpolled.

Since David is gone I guess I am asking anyone who cares to venture a
guess. What does the president have to do with these news groups?
Especially with the ending statements of "Thanks for all the
conversations. You guys have made me a better pilot." He doesn't like
the president so he is giving up a resource that can make him a better
pilot?

Just does not sound like a person that thinks rationally.



David Brooks wrote:

> One thing - one of so very many things - I learned in my five years of
> flying is that partisan politics does not fit into the cockpit. Most of my
> flight instructors have, I know, been to the right of me politically. I had
> a most enjoyable flight with CJ - although he has since earned my undying
> enmity by unapologetically using the term "Final Solution" in connection
> with me and people like me, an astonishing thought coming from an avowedly
> religious man, but telling and apt.
>
> But now it seems the nation has, albeit by a slim margin, re-elected a weak,
> hypocritical, murderous coward. Three years ago, when some writers on the
> left started talking about fascism, I thought that an absurd stretch. No
> longer. The parallels are not precise - they never are - but the broad sweep
> and many of the components of a new fascist state are in place. The 48% who
> didn't vote for this disaster keep knocking on my consciousness, but they
> are now feeble and impotent. The thugs are in charge.
>
> That being so, and despite what should be an apolitical setting, I can no
> longer in good faith keep company with a group of which the majority, I
> know, has elected to deliver the country I love, and chose as my home, into
> the hands of Bush and his repressive, regressive masters.
>
> So long. Thanks for all the conversations. You guys have made me a better
> pilot.
>
> -- David Brooks
>
>

Jay Honeck wrote:

>>These people are mad Kerry didn't run a liberal campaign and can't stand
>>that he "was just as pro-war as Bush."
>
>
> That is SO ironic.
>
> If the Democrats has nominated a middle-of-the-road guy to run against
> Bush -- say, Dick Gephardt -- this election would not have even been close.
> The Democrats would have swept the nation, and never by less than 25
> percentage points.
>
> Stupidly, they nominated a guy whose political positions were to the left of
> Ted Kennedy's, absolutely ensuring a Bush victory.
>
> There were many traditional Republicans out here -- myself included -- who
> would have voted for a conservative Democrat in this election. But there
> was just no way for any of us to vote for a guy like Kerry.
>
> The moral for the Democrats: Don't ever nominate an ultra liberal to run
> for president again.


Agreed. I don't like everything about Bush but there was no way I was
going to vote for a guy claiming he will fight a smarter war on terror
and defend the country at the same time he takes a poll to see how he
should respond to the latest Bin Laden video.

Bush at least has firm beliefs in how things should be handled.

And now I am getting too political so I will end by saying I wish more
of my friends would try flying.

"Dan Luke" > wrote in message
...
>
> "David Brooks" wrote:
>> That being so, and despite what should be an apolitical setting, I can no
>> longer in good faith keep company with a group of which the majority, I
>> know, has elected to deliver the country I love, and chose as my home,
>> into
>> the hands of Bush and his repressive, regressive masters.
>>
>> So long. Thanks for all the conversations. You guys have made me a better
>> pilot.
>
> Aww take it easy, David. I'm appalled that my fellow citizens would
> re-elect Bush but, still, some of my best friends are Republicans. Hell,
> my business partner is just a hair to the right of Gengis Khan.
>
> Sometimes the hyperbole gets a little too far over the top -- C J is
> certainly a prime practitioner of the art --


Speaking of CJ... he hasn't been heard from in a week or more????

NEVER EVER vote against a candidate! If you are voting against one
person that means you are assuming the person whose name you select will
be better without actually knowing.

If you get to a fork in the road and one way gets to where you want to
go but is gravel rutted out and pot marked with large puddles while the
other way is paved and looks like a pretty decent road but you have no
idea where it leads, which way do you take knowing once you decide, you
can not turn back?

It always bothers me when someone says they voted against someone
because that tells me they don't really know who they voted for. All
they know is that they don't like one candidate.

Now if you get to a fork in the road and decide you know you don't want
to go where one road leads and have no idea where the other leads, then
maybe you should have stopped and asked for directions.

More people really need to vote in the primaries.





Bob Chilcoat wrote:

> I absolutely agree with you, Jay. Yet again, I had to vote AGAINST a
> candidate, rather than FOR one. I just thought Kerry was the least-bad
> candidate. When Bush opens his mouth, or just looks at the camera, for that
> matter, the back of my hair goes up. What thinking individual could vote
> FOR this idiot. I guess my version of the least-bad candidate was the same
> as only 49.9% of the rest of the country.
>
> Apparently you can fool 50% of the people, but there is always a noise
> function.
>
> --
> Bob (Chief Pilot, White Knuckle Airways)
>
> I don't have to like Bush and Cheney (Or Kerry, for that matter) to love
> America
>
> "Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
> news:k_bid.351511$MQ5.252777@attbi_s52...
>
>>>These people are mad Kerry didn't run a liberal campaign and can't stand
>>>that he "was just as pro-war as Bush."
>>
>>That is SO ironic.
>>
>>If the Democrats has nominated a middle-of-the-road guy to run against
>>Bush -- say, Dick Gephardt -- this election would not have even been
>
> close.
>
>>The Democrats would have swept the nation, and never by less than 25
>>percentage points.
>>
>>Stupidly, they nominated a guy whose political positions were to the left
>
> of
>
>>Ted Kennedy's, absolutely ensuring a Bush victory.
>>
>>There were many traditional Republicans out here -- myself included -- who
>>would have voted for a conservative Democrat in this election. But there
>>was just no way for any of us to vote for a guy like Kerry.
>>
>>The moral for the Democrats: Don't ever nominate an ultra liberal to run
>>for president again.
>>--
>>Jay Honeck
>>Iowa City, IA
>>Pathfinder N56993
>>www.AlexisParkInn.com
>>"Your Aviation Destination"
>>
>>
>
>
>

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> No, a fact is an invariant.

Really?

So, a statement regarding the position of the sun during the day isn't a
fact? After all, it varies continuously throughout the day.

You have an odd definition of what's a "fact".

>>>Yes, most of these polls have significant biases.
>>
>>
>> Such as?
>
> Such as who they talk to, where they conduct the poll, what time they poll
> (as mentioned earlier, the working Republicans may not vote until after
> the welfare liberals are done), and many other factors.

Only an ignorant asshole would seriously claim that all Republicans work
while all Democrats are on welfare.

Oh, I'm starting to see what your problem is...

In any case, if you have a legitimate beef with the polls in question, state
them. So far, you've made no suggestions about why those polls are
significantly wrong, and as I've already pointed out, the chances of those
polls being correct are MUCH greater than the chances of them being
drastically incorrect.

Pete

Icebound wrote:

>
> It would be interesting to see if the (conservative) country is ready for a
> Woman in the White House, or even in the position of "heartbeat away".
>
> That's kind of a "liberal" concept, isn't it???...
>

Some liberals may like to think that they are more progressive than
conservatives because they want to see a woman president. But
regardless of party lines, my take on it is that if you are one of those
people want to see a woman president than you are a sexist. Those that
don't bring it up either are not voicing their oppinion or truely don't
care. And it is those that truely don't care whether the president is
male or female that are the more progressive.

When it comes to racism, sexism, etc., those that are the loudest about
it are those that have the problem. Jesse Jackson for instance is one
of the biggest racists out there and he gets away with it because of his
past and because he is famous. And how do you accuse someone like that
of being what they claim to be against?

"When you obsess about the enemy, you become the enemy."
- May be a quote from Babylon 5, not sure. Great show though.

Cecil Chapman wrote:

>>Stupidly, they nominated a guy whose political positions were to the left
>>of Ted Kennedy's, absolutely ensuring a Bush victory.
>>
>>There were many traditional Republicans out here -- myself included -- who
>>would have voted for a conservative Democrat in this election. But there
>>was just no way for any of us to vote for a guy like Kerry.
>>
>>The moral for the Democrats: Don't ever nominate an ultra liberal to run
>>for president again.
>
>
> I have often wondered how some people come to the conclusions that they do.
> Jay,,, for goodness sake you sound like you are a sock-puppet mouthing the
> words of his puppeteer (Bush - who was famous for the 'Kerry's just like T.
> Kennedy' line). Kerry was far left? How, where? If anything he was as
> centrist as Clinton was. You'd think he belonged to the Communist party to
> hear the prattle that is coming off of your tongue.
>
<< snip >>

Clinton was centrist? He may seem that way if he parallels your own
beliefs. But he is well left.

Most people like to think of themselves as well rounded and
accommodating to those on either side of them. But typically you are
more one side or the other. Hence those that fall on the same area of
the scale as you do seem to be centrist and the type of person you would
like to see running the country.

Just don't forget the President doesn't actually run the country. There
are three branches of government after all. For example, don't blame
the president for a deficit. The president asks for money to do what he
or she thinks needs to be done but it is up to congress to give it to
him or her. If you don't like government spending, write your
representative in congress. That is what they are there for. And they
generally reply on some nice letter head.

On Fri, 05 Nov 2004 08:38:26 -0700, Newps > wrote:

>
>
>Dave Stadt wrote:
>
>
>>
>> You would be hard pressed to prove that. Polls are at best one step above a
>> WAG.
>
>Science proves it. But, everything has to go right for the poll to
>achieve that margin of error. First you must get a represenative random
>sample. This rarely happens, there's always a little error here.
>Second the questions must not be skewed one way or the other. Third,
>the people must tell the truth. This also never happens. They always
>give the margin of error when you see a poll, this is a theoretical
>number that cannot be reached because no poll will ever be truly random,
>somebody always lies, or says they're someone their not, etc. One of
>the pollsters on TV this week said that to get the 850+ responses for a
>+-3% poll they had to call over 10,000 people. With those kinds of
>problems no way can a poll be anymore than a guess.

This is really a hoot. We wouldn't be talking about this at all if
the exit polls hadn't been so wrong. There's the proof. As to why
this happened, my theory is that there is a systematic bias error
because people who voted for Bush had better things to do with their
time than talk to the pollster. Same thing with the phone polls,
9,150 people were too busy to talk to the pollster and there is a
bias that affects the results in that.

Klein

Ah, what the Hell...

My opinion... As I have heard several political analysts mention,
today's losers are the moderate middle of the road voters who are
stuck between the ever increasing extreme views of the to parties in
our two party system. Except for a very few instances were are a two
party system that just lets others play in the pond.

As the right and left move farther apart the moderate can only pick
and choose those from either party who come closest to his ideals.
Unfortunately *both* parties take that vote to mean that individual
supports their party rather than *some* of the individual candidates
ideals.

That vote does not necessarily mean the voter supports that party's
stance on right-to-life/choice, firearms, religion, or even liberal,
or conservatism. Until the party's lean this they will probably
continue to move farther to the left and to the right.

As to the 2nd amendment. Whether for or against those arguing should
remember the whole statement, not just "A well regulated Militia". It
ends with the statement, "The right of the Individual to bare arms
shall not be infringed". OTOH, back then the militia consisted of
_every_able_bodied_adult_male.

Contrary to the doctrine of both Democrats and Republicans we of the
heartland do not like to be told what we can and can not do. We don't
like government messing with our guns, choices, or beliefs (what ever
they may be).

In present reality there are no other parties. Just the two big frogs
in a pretty big pond where the shores are getting farther apart by the
minute, with a lot of voters stranded on an island out in the center.
Maybe (*hopefully*) some one will come up with a meaningful party that
represents us. Still it would be nice is the two major parties moved
back to within at least casting distance.

Those two parties have changed places once with each now representing
what the other stood for in their beginnings. Will they continue
their divergence until both become meaningless extremes or will they
learn by past mistakes?

They each say they represent us. Yet, can a man who has lived in
luxury and who owns numerous multimillion dollar homes identify with
the family trying to pay off a small family home and has to borrow to
sent the kids to college? How can some one like that then represent
someone who lives a life so alien to them? How do we in aviation feel
about trial lawyers and in particularly those in tort law? I'd be
very uneasy about the prospect of one of *those* lawyers becoming
president.

From the other side, we are Christians of many sects, Jew, Hindu,
Buddhist, Atheist, Agnostic, Islamic, and many, many others. How can
we expect to be represented by a born again Christian and wealthy
individual?

This is hardly a start on the issues as it'd take a thick book to list
them all and for each one, some one will have an answer. The problem
is they will not have an answer for all and most likely not even a
majority .

The point being, neither can fully represent the average individual.

That leaves those who do not completely embrace either the
Democratic, or Republican platforms as disenfranchised voters and
individuals that will end up with elected officials who really do not
properly represent them. These are the people who have to weigh the
issues by choosing which of their needs, wants, and beliefs are the
most important and the ones they will have to abandon. For either
party to take a vote as supporting their platforms is a grave mistake.

The rest of the world, who we have bailed out on a number of
occasions, sees us with a distorted view as we do them. Still, were
we to abandon them and tend only to our own internal needs the rest of
the world would slowly turn against us. Is it not better that we try
to stem the tide even though many disagree with us? Either way we go
we are going to gain enemies from within and without.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

On 11/5/04 9:35 PM, in article ,
"Roger" > wrote:
>
> As to the 2nd amendment. Whether for or against those arguing should
> remember the whole statement, not just "A well regulated Militia". It
> ends with the statement, "The right of the Individual to bare arms
> shall not be infringed". OTOH, back then the militia consisted of
> _every_able_bodied_adult_male.
>

The "well-regulated" portion of the amendment is the part that the
anti-gunners most commonly grasp at to justify their stance. They think that
they are just "regulating" a bit more, and after all, the amendment
specifically requires it, doesn't it?

The fact that they are unaware that the words used in the amendment don't
have the same meaning as they do today, illuminates quite nicely how
ignorant they are of history, the Constitution, and how little homework they
have done on the subject.
--
Jeff 'The Wizard of Draws' Bucchino
Cartoons with a Touch of Magic�
http://www.wizardofdraws.com
http://www.cartoonclipart.com

"Jay Honeck" > writes:

> He said "OF COURSE the exit polls showed Kerry ahead early in the day -- all
> the Republicans work for a living, and couldn't vote till after 6 PM!"

Nahh...all the Dems voted early, before they went to work, while the
Repubs were still asleep...

On Fri, 5 Nov 2004 18:15:05 -0600, "Greg Butler"
> wrote:

>
>> No, a fact is an invariant. If you take a poll and then take another
>> poll, you'll get a different result. That isn't factual, sorry.
>
>Actually a poll is a statement of fact: the people polled did in fact say
>what the poll says. The problem arises with how you extend the poll to
>represent the unpolled.
>
And whether those being polled told the truth. I wouldn't and many
told them their vote was private. I think it's becoming trendy to lie
to the pollsters.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> > Earl Grieda wrote:
> >
> > However, since the meaning of words do evolve then it certainly is
> > possible that what this person claims is true. But in that case we
> > need to use the definition of "Arms" as it was defined when the Bill
> >of Rights was written.
>
> I agree. Private ownership of cannons was fairly common on those days
> and they were about the biggest and baddest weapons available to anyone
> then.
>

Do you have any reference to prove that cannon ownership was common in those
days? Fairly common would constitute an ownership percentage greater than
50% of the population.

Earl G

Greg Butler wrote:

>>No, a fact is an invariant. If you take a poll and then take another
>>poll, you'll get a different result. That isn't factual, sorry.
>
>
> Actually a poll is a statement of fact: the people polled did in fact say
> what the poll says. The problem arises with how you extend the poll to
> represent the unpolled.
>
>

Which is the entire purpose of a poll, so I think that is a given. And,
yes, I agree that herein lies the problem.


Matt

Peter Duniho wrote:

> "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>No, a fact is an invariant.
>
>
> Really?
>
> So, a statement regarding the position of the sun during the day isn't a
> fact? After all, it varies continuously throughout the day.

Yes, that is a fact because it includes the element of time. If you
take two polls at the same time in the same place you will get two
different answers.


> You have an odd definition of what's a "fact".

Much better than yours though.


Matt

Earl Grieda wrote:

> "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>>Earl Grieda wrote:
>>>
>>>However, since the meaning of words do evolve then it certainly is
>>>possible that what this person claims is true. But in that case we
>>>need to use the definition of "Arms" as it was defined when the Bill
>>>of Rights was written.
>>
>>I agree. Private ownership of cannons was fairly common on those days
>>and they were about the biggest and baddest weapons available to anyone
>>then.
>>
>
>
> Do you have any reference to prove that cannon ownership was common in those
> days? Fairly common would constitute an ownership percentage greater than
> 50% of the population.

Do you own homework. And learn what common means. Pipers are common
light airplanes, yet they constitute far less than 50% of the fleet.

Matt

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> > Please provide a referance to back up your etymological evolution of
these
> > terms.
> >
> > Earl G.
> >
> >
>
> That would be a reference, with three e's. Since you are too lazy to do
> your own research, here's a little to get you started:
>
> http://www.constitution.org/mil/cs_milit.htm
>
> http://www.post-gazette.com/forum/20001008edkelly5.asp
>
> http://www.nitewavesherrym.com/militia/militia.html
>
>
> Do you think you can handle "well regulated" on your own?

Think of a grandfather clock; see the word "Regulated" on the face?, it
doesn't mean it was approved by the Ministry of Clocks.

> No, I just don't see them the same way you do. You can SCREAM in capital
> letters all you want and decide that I'm suffering from a terminal case of
> cognitive dissonance, but that's not a very mature response, now is it?
>

Naw,,, did NOT scream in capital letters <grin>!

> Perhaps Republicans in Utah are just as touchy as liberals in Cambridge
> and
> Berkeley. All that ideological conformity makes these places into
> ideological veal pens. God forbid you ever have to venture outside that
> bubble.

Please don't even get me started on Berkeley (sometimes I wish they would be
declared a separate state so that their questionable actions/ideas would be
associated with Californians as a whole.

I was born in Chicago, but from 1 y.o. and on lived in San Francisco. I'm
fully aware that venturing outside California is quite different, but that
doesn't make the observation that bigotry exists any less true. I know when
I've been in the South, I was surprised that many of the old attitudes have
never left, just that they've gone a little more underground (regarding
blacks). It IS like night and day between California and some other states
regarding attitudes towards same-sex unions - I was just trying to point out
that having a gay person or couple in your neighborhood isn't going to 'turn
you' or your children gay. Just isn't going to happen. Not necessarily
true in your case,,, but I have noticed that those who are most vehement
against gays often turn out to be people who are struggling with their
certainty about their own sexuality.

Unfortunately, the gay citizens that get the most tv coverage here in San
Francisco are those that are more flamboyant in costume and dress during Gay
Pride celebrations. You'd find that most of the gay couples in our
neighborhood (as well as yours,,,, they likely stay 'hidden') just dress
like you and me, kiss a loved one on the way to work and aren't wearing pink
feathered costumes and a headdress. :0) I guess all I was saying is that I
don't understand the intolerance; I don't worry that my wife, my marriage or
child are at risk because of Gay people. I WILL say that the only persons
that worry me most in regards to my 9 year old stepson are Catholic Priests.
I DO keep my eye on them (though I understand that most are just fine - but
I watch out as much as possible)... but that is another issue altogether.

--
--
=-----
Good Flights!

Cecil
PP-ASEL-IA
Student - CP-ASEL

Check out my personal flying adventures from my first flight to the
checkride AND the continuing adventures beyond!
Complete with pictures and text at: www.bayareapilot.com

"I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things."
- Antoine de Saint-Exupery -

"We who fly, do so for the love of flying. We are alive in the air with
this miracle that lies in our hands and beneath our feet"
- Cecil Day Lewis -
"C Kingsbury" > wrote in message
nk.net...
> I'm the original poster and I approve this response.
>
> "Cecil Chapman" > wrote in message
> m...
>>
>> freaks...... See this is what I mean about people like yourself,,, they
>> don't see the connections between their own observations.
>
Just like David Brooks, who decided he can't even deal with being in
> the presence of people who voted for Bush.
>
> Best,
> -cwk.
>
>