> 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.

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message news:<7kDid.56196$R05.33927@attbi_s53>...
> >> Since people being paid by the government (employees, retirees, what have
> >> you) do not generate any income in the purest sense, the "taxes" they
> >> "pay"
> >> are entirely illusory. Same with anyone on the dole.
> >
> > A perfect example, Jay, of why your "olive branch" of yesterday is
> > just horse feathers, glued together with spit and bull****.
> >
> > You--and many others--equate government workers with people on the
> > dole.
>
> No, they are NOT the same.
>
> However, it is nevertheless true that neither group generates real income,
> creates real wealth, or pays taxes in any real sense.
>
> Just think about it a minute, and it will make more sense. It is only the
> people working OUTSIDE the government that can create wealth or pay taxes.
> How can a government worker pay taxes? The money they are "paying" in
> taxes is made from taxes in the first place!
>
> Deducting taxes from government employee's paychecks is quite literally an
> illusion. But it's an essential lie that keeps everyone else subdued about
> the incredible rip-off we call our "tax code."
>
> You might consider taking a few economics courses at your local community
> college. These facts will be covered in the first month or so.

Well, I have a degree in economics, something more than "a few
courses". You're mixing up money, accounting, and wealth. GNP is the
sum total of all productive work in the economy over a year.
Government workers can, and some do, contribute productive work. If
it was not being done by them it would either have to do be done by
someone or we would be poorer as a country.

We track GNP by money, but the money is a just a marker, it's not real
thing. The productive work is the real thing.

Economically a government typically does things that either don't work
or aren't done well by the market system. There ARE things that don't
work in markets - any good general economics textbook will discuss
"market failures". Although some people think that markets solve
everything, they're wrong. Markets are good and solve many things -
but they're not a cure all.

I don't like some government workers, but they I don't like some store
clerks and cashiers I have to deal with at the supermarket either.
The difference is that it's easier for me to change supermarkets than
it is governments. I tried this last election and it didn't work.

-Malcolm Teas

"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.

On Thu, 04 Nov 2004 12:27:25 -0600, Frank > wrote:

>Jay Beckman wrote:
>
>
>>
>> Giuliani-Rice might work, but howzabout Colin Powell - Elizabeth Dole?
>>
>> Either ticket would probably make the loyal oppositon's heads explode.
>
>I would never vote for Bush but I have nothing but respect for Colin Powell,
>he is the best asset this administration has (had?). If Powell had led the
>ticket in 2000 I doubt it would have been even remotely close.

I had (past tense) great respect for Colin Powell and was pleased when
he became secretary of state. My respect for him was lost when he
became the lapdog of the administration and was not allowed to
function as anything other than a conduit for policies that he did not
believe in. If he had resigned, and maintained his integrity I would
still respect him. I was often embarrassed for him and he should have
been embarrassed for himself.
Rich Russell

> . . . 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.

Peter Duniho wrote:

> "Frank" > wrote in message ...
>> I would never vote for Bush but I have nothing but respect for Colin
>> Powell
>
> Are you talking about the same Colin Powell that got in front of the UN
> and swore up and down that he had incontrovertible evidence of weapons of
> mass destruction in Iraq?
>
>> he is the best asset this administration has (had?).
>
> That's probably true. Damning with faint praise though.
>
> Pete

It certainly was not his best moment and it did indeed diminish is stature
somewhat. But the circumstances at the time backed him into a corner.

I am willing to cut him a little slack because I believe he thought by doing
the UN thing he could regain some influence and head off some of the other
disasters he saw looming. Too bad he was wrong.


--
Frank....H

Howard Nelson wrote:

> After all, how do you bribe a wealthy man?
>>
>> <snip>
>> --
>> Frank....H
>
> With unbridled power. And if that doesn't frighten you then what will?
> Until the democrats get out of the business of promoting a nanny state
> they probably will stay out of power.
>
> I think an interesting question is why the majority of major urban areas
> are "blue" and the remainder of the country is "red". Any thoughts? Are
> the
> people in the "blue" areas: Smarter? More Dependent? More Caring?
> Need more services?
>
> Howard
>

Not smarter but more "worldly". I'm not trying to insult anyone here. Some
of my closest friends live in rural areas. Some of those have never
traveled more that 100 miles from home. They see things very differently
than their neighbor whose job takes him all over the country (and once in a
while overseas).

More caring only in the sense that they see the plight of the poor first
hand and therefore it is more tangible to them. Rural "reds" have been led
to believe that people are poor solely because they are lazy. If they had
to come face to face with the realities they would care just as much.

Sometimes more services are needed to compensate for problems unique to
urban life. For the disadvantaged I suppose this can translate into 'more
dependent.

The biggest difference I see today is in attitude. "Reds" seem to have one
of "I've got mine, you get yours" while the "blues" is more like "We have
so much, we should try to make life better for the less fortunate".

--
Frank....H

Dave Stadt wrote:

>
> "Frank" > wrote in message ...
>> John T wrote:
>>
<snip>
>>
>> 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?
>
> The same way you bribe a poor man.

I wasn't suggesting you couldn't bribe a rich man, just that since he
doesn't need the money as much he will be more inclined to do the right
thing.


--
Frank....H

John T wrote:

> "Frank" > wrote in message
>>
>> In fact he was, in effect, advocating raising his own taxes.
>
> Nothing is preventing him from paying more, if that's what he wants. I
> recommend he start by giving more money to charities.
>
>> 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.
>
> I don't begrudge his wealth at all. I do find it difficult to believe
> that
> *the* richest man in the US Congress is looking out for "the common man."
> I
> doubt he really understands the "common man's" experience. What we need
> is more "common men" in Congress looking out for the "common man."
>

I agree that would be preferable. However our current system all but
precludes that from happening.

How much money someone has does not determine if he will serve the people
well or not. In our system (as currently implemented) wealth does allow for
the possibility for one to forego the usual role of whore to lobbyists.


--
Frank....H

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

"Klein" > wrote

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

I must admit to being one of that count that have better things to do, than
talking to pollsters. Sometimes, there is lint to pick out of my
belly-button, or....whatever.

I don't understand why the "do not call list" does not apply to political
calls, and polls. They have no "right" to use my phone without my
permission, and I have no obligation to talk to them.
--
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

"Richard Russell" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 04 Nov 2004 12:27:25 -0600, Frank > wrote:
>
>>Jay Beckman wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Giuliani-Rice might work, but howzabout Colin Powell - Elizabeth Dole?
>>>
>>> Either ticket would probably make the loyal oppositon's heads explode.
>>
>>I would never vote for Bush but I have nothing but respect for Colin
>>Powell,
>>he is the best asset this administration has (had?). If Powell had led the
>>ticket in 2000 I doubt it would have been even remotely close.
>
> I had (past tense) great respect for Colin Powell and was pleased when
> he became secretary of state. My respect for him was lost when he
> became the lapdog of the administration and was not allowed to
> function as anything other than a conduit for policies that he did not
> believe in. If he had resigned, and maintained his integrity I would
> still respect him. I was often embarrassed for him and he should have
> been embarrassed for himself.
> Rich Russell

How do you know what Gen Powell personally believes?

It's quite possible, is it not, that his military training begat someone who
is a team player and follows orders?

Isn't the SecState supposed to be the spokesperson/conduit for his/her
administrations policies?

Jay Beckman
Chandler, AZ
PP-ASEL

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.
>
>

But Jeff, the words hearken back to the situation that they arose from -
They had guns and when they wanted to oust the British control this was
INDEED handy! The second amendment just recognizes that it was important
for its' citizens to have access to guns in order to have a militia to call,
in times of threat.

I go back to what I said before. The average citizen has NO need to have
armor piercing bullets (or rounds that will effectively do the same). Any
cop-friend will tell you is to get a shotgun for home protection, you just
point in the 'general direction' and you'll hit the intruder. Handguns are
just fine, too and I have had NO problem with the notion of registration -
though I would be remiss to point out that many crimes are committed with
stolen weapons, anyways. I've just been saying that Joe Bob down the street
doesn't need a shoulder fired missile, armor piercing bullets, automatic
weapons to defend his/her home. Unless he is out in the woods and up
against some real bad-assed deer named Rambo <grin>.

What I DO agree with is that some of the legislation tries to blur the line
between automatic (already illegal) and semiautomatic. According to one
piece of legislation that almost went through out here in California, a
simple Marlin .22 rifle was going to be declared illegal because it had a
magazine that carried the specified amount of rounds - that kind of thinking
was absurd and even here in California that part of the legislation got
tossed out on its' butt. But,,,, an AK-47??? Joe Citizen has NO needs for
that.

--
--
=-----
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 average citizen has NO need to have...

airplanes or chemistry sets or powerful computers or home weather stations or SUVs. The average citizen does not need seventeen different choices of toothpaste just on one aisle, and the average citizen most definately does not need a big mac.

And actually, a "well regulated militia" would come in handy at 38,000 feet were theere a dispute about who should fly the airplane.

Jose
--
Freedom. It seemed like a good idea at the time.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.
(note, replied to r.a.piloting, r.a.ifr, and r.a.student, but I don't follow the student group)

Cecil Chapman wrote:

> But Jeff, the words hearken back to the situation that they arose from -
> They had guns and when they wanted to oust the British control this was
> INDEED handy! The second amendment just recognizes that it was important
> for its' citizens to have access to guns in order to have a militia to call,
> in times of threat.
>
> I go back to what I said before. The average citizen has NO need to have
> armor piercing bullets (or rounds that will effectively do the same). Any
> cop-friend will tell you is to get a shotgun for home protection, you just
> point in the 'general direction' and you'll hit the intruder. Handguns are
> just fine, too and I have had NO problem with the notion of registration -
> though I would be remiss to point out that many crimes are committed with
> stolen weapons, anyways. I've just been saying that Joe Bob down the street
> doesn't need a shoulder fired missile, armor piercing bullets, automatic
> weapons to defend his/her home. Unless he is out in the woods and up
> against some real bad-assed deer named Rambo <grin>.

You really don't understand the Constitution, do you? The point was
allowing people to protect themselves from the government, not the thief
down the street. If the government has better weapons than the
populace, then protecting yourself from the government isn't possible,
is it?


> What I DO agree with is that some of the legislation tries to blur the line
> between automatic (already illegal) and semiautomatic. According to one
> piece of legislation that almost went through out here in California, a
> simple Marlin .22 rifle was going to be declared illegal because it had a
> magazine that carried the specified amount of rounds - that kind of thinking
> was absurd and even here in California that part of the legislation got
> tossed out on its' butt. But,,,, an AK-47??? Joe Citizen has NO needs for
> that.

Sure he does. You just don't understand the reason. Sure, we've had
225+ years of reasonable government, but not all governments stay
reasonable. You need a means to ensure that and freedom of the press is
one means and force is the other.


Matt

My totally amazed comments are in you text...



"Cecil Chapman" > wrote in message
om...
> > 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).

I used to have a gijrlfriend who was from SF and extremely liberal. I used
to kid her that the only time she ever actually saw a black person was when
she went to Oakland. I'm afraid you may be a victim of that same syndrome.

If you were to actually talk to a black person you would find that there is
far less prejudice in the South than in the North. Oh, you might see a
Confederate flag or two in the South but it is more a symbol of Southern
pride than racism. When civil rights came, Southerners adopted them far
quicker than did non-Southerners. Because white Southerners actually knew
black people. As I have discussed with some of my black friends, in the
South you know who doesn't like you because of your color. They flip you off
or yell at you, but you know who they are and you ignore them. But, in the
North (for example), everybody smiles and shakes your hand at the same time
they're putting restrictive covenants on their neighborhoods so black people
can't buy houses there, and they pass laws banning "alley basketball"
because they don't want black kids hanging out on their block.

And do you know where the new "Black Mecca" is? A place where the government
is predominantly run by blacks? A place where black business thrives? A
place where black Americans can live in peace, prosperity, and equality
alongside their black neighbors. It's Atlanta. That's in Georgia; about as
far "down South" as you can get. Yea, the South is a really prejudiced
place!




> 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.

Have you not read anything lately? That stupid catch-phrase came out in the
60's, when queers first started to come above ground as part of the queer
rights movement. It was bogus then and it is bogus now.



>
> 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.

At this point, we don't know how many people are "born gay" and how many
adopt a gay lifestyle for whatever reason, including an inability to cope
with their straight sexuality. Showing the "gay lifestyle" as an attractive
choice is probably not a good idea for a pubscent child who is wrestling
with their own sexuality.

Since you find no perils in associating with gays, why don't you start
dropping your own child off in the Castro on Saturday afternoons. I'm sure
some of the boys over there will be happy to teach him a lot of fun things.

With regard to priests, always remember this: it's cheaper to pay than to
fight, and you don't get near as much publicity. And you will notice that a
lot of these so-called "victims" suffer from a lot of mental problems. I'll
agree that some may have stemmed from abuse, but a lot of these problems do
not. And you are dealing with a lot of "recovered memories" and other very
shaky memories. But any time "child molestation" comes into play there is
just no way for the accused to win.





>
> --
> --
> =-----
> 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.
> >
> >
>
>

Isn't an assault weapon anything that holds over a certain number of rounds?
They can be, and usually are, semi-automatic. I've never heard of the
assault weapon as being only full automatic.

mike regish


"G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Bob Chilcoat wrote:
>>
>> ... no one NEEDs to own an assault rifle or machine gun for
>> personal use.
>
> And the typical citizen cannot do so. Assault rifles and machine guns are
> fully
> automatic weapons and are restricted by legislation enacted in 1934. If
> you want to
> own one today, you have to obtain a permit from BATF for each weapon. This
> requires
> that you pass essentially the same investigations necessary to get a top
> secret
> security clearance and pay a hefty fee (in 1981, the fee was $600 per
> weapon). Many
> States also require a separate investigation and permit, and some States
> will not
> allow private citizens to own them at all.
>
> George Patterson
> If a man gets into a fight 3,000 miles away from home, he *had* to
> have
> been looking for it.

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> 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.

Not if you poll the same people. If you're going to argue variant versus
invariant, you need to hold ALL relevant factors invariant when you're
talking about invariant.

>> You have an odd definition of what's a "fact".
>
> Much better than yours though.

Huh? That's the best you could come up with?

"Bill Denton" > wrote in message
...
> [...] Yea, the South is a really prejudiced place!

It sure was in the 80's. I can't speak for the current atmosphere, but when
I lived in Virginia, the common refrain when a black man ran for governor
was "I'm not racist, but I just can't imagine one of THOSE people as
governor." Of course, that would never be said to the face of a black
person. But it was said, nevertheless.

The South has a much better handle on manners, and so the racism isn't
nearly as overt as it might be elsewhere. But that doesn't mean the South
isn't still affected by racism.

As far as your so-called examples of "northern racism" go, they are pretty
absurd themselves. I doubt you could present a single example of a
residential covenant that literally makes it "so black people can't buy
houses there", and while it wouldn't surprise me to find rules restricting
or even prohibiting basketball in alleys, you'd be hard pressed to prove to
me that those rules are about keeping blacks out of the alleys rather than
simply keeping loud groups of young people from annoying the neighbors.
It's a pretty racist attitude you've got there to think that only black kids
play basketball.

Your homophobic rants are even more ridiculous...I'm not even going to waste
time responding to them.

Pete

Peter Duniho wrote:

> "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>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.
>
>
> Not if you poll the same people. If you're going to argue variant versus
> invariant, you need to hold ALL relevant factors invariant when you're
> talking about invariant.

Maybe, maybe not. People are notoriously fickle. And even if you get
the same responses twice, it only tells you one thing: what those people
said at that instant. It doesn't tell you that much about the broader
population because of the biases we discussed earlier. And thus exit
polls are a complete waste of time because nobody cares what some subset
of the voters think.


>>>You have an odd definition of what's a "fact".
>>
>>Much better than yours though.
>
>
> Huh? That's the best you could come up with?
>
>

Beats "huh?"

Matt

Matt Whiting > writes:
> Earl Grieda wrote:
> > "Matt Whiting" > 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.
> >>
> >>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.

Cannon were so common that the colonists had to steal
them from the Brits for use in Boston and even then
didn't have much ammunition for them. It was a good
bluff, though, that worked.

"Homophobe"; the last refuge of the village idiot.

I've never heard an intelligent person use that term.





"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
> "Bill Denton" > wrote in message
> ...
> > [...] Yea, the South is a really prejudiced place!
>
> It sure was in the 80's. I can't speak for the current atmosphere, but
when
> I lived in Virginia, the common refrain when a black man ran for governor
> was "I'm not racist, but I just can't imagine one of THOSE people as
> governor." Of course, that would never be said to the face of a black
> person. But it was said, nevertheless.
>
> The South has a much better handle on manners, and so the racism isn't
> nearly as overt as it might be elsewhere. But that doesn't mean the South
> isn't still affected by racism.
>
> As far as your so-called examples of "northern racism" go, they are pretty
> absurd themselves. I doubt you could present a single example of a
> residential covenant that literally makes it "so black people can't buy
> houses there", and while it wouldn't surprise me to find rules restricting
> or even prohibiting basketball in alleys, you'd be hard pressed to prove
to
> me that those rules are about keeping blacks out of the alleys rather than
> simply keeping loud groups of young people from annoying the neighbors.
> It's a pretty racist attitude you've got there to think that only black
kids
> play basketball.
>
> Your homophobic rants are even more ridiculous...I'm not even going to
waste
> time responding to them.
>
> Pete
>
>

In article >,
"Peter Duniho" > wrote:

> > 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.
>
> Not if you poll the same people.

assuming that they will answer truthfully each time....

--
Bob Noel

"David Brooks" > wrote in message
>>SNIPPED>>
> -- David Brooks

Don't go away mad! Just...

Bryan

Cowards runs...Real men stay and fight, Political preference withstanding.

On 11/6/04 11:39 AM, in article
, "Cecil Chapman"
> wrote:

> But Jeff, the words hearken back to the situation that they arose from -
> They had guns and when they wanted to oust the British control this was
> INDEED handy! The second amendment just recognizes that it was important
> for its' citizens to have access to guns in order to have a militia to call,
> in times of threat.
>
> I go back to what I said before. The average citizen has NO need to have
> armor piercing bullets (or rounds that will effectively do the same). Any
> cop-friend will tell you is to get a shotgun for home protection, you just
> point in the 'general direction' and you'll hit the intruder. Handguns are
> just fine, too and I have had NO problem with the notion of registration -
> though I would be remiss to point out that many crimes are committed with
> stolen weapons, anyways. I've just been saying that Joe Bob down the street
> doesn't need a shoulder fired missile, armor piercing bullets, automatic
> weapons to defend his/her home. Unless he is out in the woods and up
> against some real bad-assed deer named Rambo <grin>.
>
> What I DO agree with is that some of the legislation tries to blur the line
> between automatic (already illegal) and semiautomatic. According to one
> piece of legislation that almost went through out here in California, a
> simple Marlin .22 rifle was going to be declared illegal because it had a
> magazine that carried the specified amount of rounds - that kind of thinking
> was absurd and even here in California that part of the legislation got
> tossed out on its' butt. But,,,, an AK-47??? Joe Citizen has NO needs for
> that.

Sorry Cecil, I won't argue the amendment. I let it stand on it's own as
interpreted by the SC. But when someone tries to misinterpret the meaning in
order to further their agenda, I speak up.

Change the Constitution if you can, but trying to alter the original views
of Jefferson, Madison, Franklin, et al, by incorrectly using their words is
a sure way to invalidate your argument and doom your cause to failure.
--
Jeff 'The Wizard of Draws' Bucchino
Cartoons with a Touch of Magic�
http://www.wizardofdraws.com
http://www.cartoonclipart.com

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> Cecil Chapman wrote:
>
> > But Jeff, the words hearken back to the situation that they arose from -
> > They had guns and when they wanted to oust the British control this was
> > INDEED handy! The second amendment just recognizes that it was
important
> > for its' citizens to have access to guns in order to have a militia to
call,
> > in times of threat.
> >
> > I go back to what I said before. The average citizen has NO need to
have
> > armor piercing bullets (or rounds that will effectively do the same).
Any
> > cop-friend will tell you is to get a shotgun for home protection, you
just
> > point in the 'general direction' and you'll hit the intruder. Handguns
are
> > just fine, too and I have had NO problem with the notion of
registration -
> > though I would be remiss to point out that many crimes are committed
with
> > stolen weapons, anyways. I've just been saying that Joe Bob down the
street
> > doesn't need a shoulder fired missile, armor piercing bullets, automatic
> > weapons to defend his/her home. Unless he is out in the woods and up
> > against some real bad-assed deer named Rambo <grin>.
>
> You really don't understand the Constitution, do you? The point was
> allowing people to protect themselves from the government, not the thief
> down the street. If the government has better weapons than the
> populace, then protecting yourself from the government isn't possible,
> is it?
>
>
> > What I DO agree with is that some of the legislation tries to blur the
line
> > between automatic (already illegal) and semiautomatic. According to one
> > piece of legislation that almost went through out here in California, a
> > simple Marlin .22 rifle was going to be declared illegal because it had
a
> > magazine that carried the specified amount of rounds - that kind of
thinking
> > was absurd and even here in California that part of the legislation got
> > tossed out on its' butt. But,,,, an AK-47??? Joe Citizen has NO needs
for
> > that.
>
> Sure he does. You just don't understand the reason. Sure, we've had
> 225+ years of reasonable government, but not all governments stay
> reasonable. You need a means to ensure that and freedom of the press is
> one means and force is the other.
>
>
> Matt

The problem is most people believe the populace is subservient to the
government which of course is 180 degrees out of whack. The constitution
provided for us to overthrow the government if necessary but most people are
totally incapable of comprehending the possibility.

"mike regish" > wrote in message
news:Gh8jd.63382$R05.58068@attbi_s53...
> Isn't an assault weapon anything that holds over a certain number of
rounds?
> They can be, and usually are, semi-automatic. I've never heard of the
> assault weapon as being only full automatic.
>
> mike regish

"Assault weapon" is a term used by politicians to mean whatever they want it
to mean.. A wooden spoon or a bad fart can be an assault weapon. The whole
assault weapon think is nothing but nonsense politics and chest thumping.

> Well, I have a degree in economics, something more than "a few
> courses".

Well, welcome to the "Land of Useless Degrees" -- as the owner of an English
degree, I can sympathize....

;-)

> You're mixing up money, accounting, and wealth.

I wasn't mixing up anything -- I was simplifying for the sake of a Usenet
argument. If you want to get into macro-economic theory, most people here
(myself included) will quickly doze off.

The pseudo-"science" of economics is one of the main reasons I dropped my
Business major in my sophomore year. The only area of study I found that
was less scientific, perhaps, was sociology -- although it was a close race.

Let's keep it simple: People who work outside of the government pay all the
taxes that pay for the people's jobs who work INSIDE the government --
period. It doesn't much matter if it's stuff that SHOULD or COULD be done
by the private sector -- cuz it's just not happening.

Thus, any "taxes" paid by the people who work inside the government simply
don't exist, except on paper. It's all accounting smoke and mirrors.

What the government SHOULD do, to keep the system simple and honest, is to
simply pay their workers a straight wage, without any bogus taxes being
deducted. The only reason they DON'T do this, quite frankly, is that they'd
have to pay their workers (on paper) a good 20 to 30% less than their
equivalent job in the private sector.

This wouldn't help government recruitment, now would it?

Of course, when the public suddenly realized that these government workers
were taking home the exact same amount of money they were -- even though
they appeared to be paid 30% less -- the private sector workers might
finally realize just how unfairly they were being taxed.

This would soon lead to a popular (and probably violent) revolt -- which
isn't compatible with keeping the country running smoothly. Thus, the
ridiculous system of paying government workers 30% more -- just so they can
deduct 30% in taxes -- persists.

It's criminal. And it's the law.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Peter Duniho wrote:
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.

So which is it? Is the poll a fact or nearly a fact?

Cecil Chapman wrote:

But,,,, an AK-47??? Joe Citizen has NO needs for
> that.

What caliber of round does an AK-47 shoot? Smaller than the average big
game round. Assuming the AK is fixed so it can only shoot semi
automatic you only dislike it because of how it looks.

> *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.

Since Iraq didn't even have a missile delivery system, much less the 'WMD's,
I don't even see how they could be viewed as a hostile threat to the U.S.
The hypocrisy I'm trying to point out is; Bush keeps telling us how we are
there to free the Iraqi's from repression (there is NO doubt, that many
dissidents were brutally treated),,, but what about the mass genocide that
is going on RIGHT NOW (and has been going on for some time) in parts of
Africa. Why aren't we saving them? Could it be that there country has no
economic benefits to offer us and that,,, after all,, it is "just" black
skinned people dying over there?

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

Significant margin? Not quite,,,, 51 to 48 percent is hardly a national
mandate - in fact it reveals a deeply divided country.

Not to worry,,,, Congress is investigating Halliburton as we speak.........
:0)

--
--
=-----
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 -

Dave Stadt wrote:

> "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Cecil Chapman wrote:
>>
>>
>>>But Jeff, the words hearken back to the situation that they arose from -
>>>They had guns and when they wanted to oust the British control this was
>>>INDEED handy! The second amendment just recognizes that it was
>
> important
>
>>>for its' citizens to have access to guns in order to have a militia to
>
> call,
>
>>>in times of threat.
>>>
>>>I go back to what I said before. The average citizen has NO need to
>
> have
>
>>>armor piercing bullets (or rounds that will effectively do the same).
>
> Any
>
>>>cop-friend will tell you is to get a shotgun for home protection, you
>
> just
>
>>>point in the 'general direction' and you'll hit the intruder. Handguns
>
> are
>
>>>just fine, too and I have had NO problem with the notion of
>
> registration -
>
>>>though I would be remiss to point out that many crimes are committed
>
> with
>
>>>stolen weapons, anyways. I've just been saying that Joe Bob down the
>
> street
>
>>>doesn't need a shoulder fired missile, armor piercing bullets, automatic
>>>weapons to defend his/her home. Unless he is out in the woods and up
>>>against some real bad-assed deer named Rambo <grin>.
>>
>>You really don't understand the Constitution, do you? The point was
>>allowing people to protect themselves from the government, not the thief
>>down the street. If the government has better weapons than the
>>populace, then protecting yourself from the government isn't possible,
>>is it?
>>
>>
>>
>>>What I DO agree with is that some of the legislation tries to blur the
>
> line
>
>>>between automatic (already illegal) and semiautomatic. According to one
>>>piece of legislation that almost went through out here in California, a
>>>simple Marlin .22 rifle was going to be declared illegal because it had
>
> a
>
>>>magazine that carried the specified amount of rounds - that kind of
>
> thinking
>
>>>was absurd and even here in California that part of the legislation got
>>>tossed out on its' butt. But,,,, an AK-47??? Joe Citizen has NO needs
>
> for
>
>>>that.
>>
>>Sure he does. You just don't understand the reason. Sure, we've had
>>225+ years of reasonable government, but not all governments stay
>>reasonable. You need a means to ensure that and freedom of the press is
>>one means and force is the other.
>>
>>
>>Matt
>
>
> The problem is most people believe the populace is subservient to the
> government which of course is 180 degrees out of whack. The constitution
> provided for us to overthrow the government if necessary but most people are
> totally incapable of comprehending the possibility.

Yes, absolutely. Fortunately, for all of its problems, we've enjoyed
pretty good government ... even when the democrats were in control. :-)
However, the possibility always exists that our government will move to
a point where we must start again. I'll admit that I have a hard time
compehending that myself, but the writers of the Constitution were
keenly aware of this issue!


Matt

"Cecil Chapman" > wrote in message
. com...
> But Jeff, the words hearken back to the situation that they arose from -
> They had guns and when they wanted to oust the British control this was
> INDEED handy! The second amendment just recognizes that it was important
> for its' citizens to have access to guns in order to have a militia to
> call, in times of threat.

It is more than just handy. It ensures our other liberties.

>
> I go back to what I said before. The average citizen has NO need to have
> armor piercing bullets (or rounds that will effectively do the same). Any
> cop-friend will tell you is to get a shotgun for home protection, you just
> point in the 'general direction' and you'll hit the intruder. Handguns
> are just fine, too and I have had NO problem with the notion of
> registration - though I would be remiss to point out that many crimes are
> committed with stolen weapons, anyways.

No ****. Crimes are committed by criminals. All the anti gun laws in the
world aren't going to stop them.

> I've just been saying that Joe Bob down the street doesn't need a shoulder
> fired missile, armor piercing bullets, automatic weapons to defend his/her
> home. Unless he is out in the woods and up against some real bad-assed
> deer named Rambo <grin>.

You're an idiot. Who are you tto make up this crap about what another
person needs or wants? Ownership is not the problem - it never was. The
problem is the criminals.

>
> What I DO agree with is that some of the legislation tries to blur the
> line between automatic (already illegal) and semiautomatic. According to
> one piece of legislation that almost went through out here in California,
> a simple Marlin .22 rifle was going to be declared illegal because it had
> a magazine that carried the specified amount of rounds - that kind of
> thinking was absurd and even here in California that part of the
> legislation got tossed out on its' butt. But,,,, an AK-47??? Joe Citizen
> has NO needs for that.

I have an "AK-47" or rather the semi auto version from Romania. It is no
more lethal (in fact less so) than a decent hunting rifle. What people seem
to object to is the appearance of it. Do you have any idea what you are
talking about?

>
> --
> --
> =-----
> 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 used to have a girlfriend

I'll bet you did,,, and then she realized you were a racist and off she
went - there's not much tolerance out here for mindless intolerance

>actually saw a black person was when
>she went to Oakland. I'm afraid you may be a victim of that same syndrome.

Not so,,, our former mayor (who kept getting reelected until he ran against
term limits - he was one of our finest mayors and did great things for our
city) of San Francisco, was definitely quite black! Also, you've obviously
never been in San Francisco for any appreciable length of time,,, I grew up
here.

One of my wife's coworkers related a story where she was attending a college
in the South and was amazed to see on the public bulletin board notices
regarding KKK meetings. Being from L.A. and Northern California, she
developed friendships with the blacks on campus. Then one day, she invited
two of her black girlfriends over to her dorm room. Her roommate wouldn't
say a word but would just glare at her guests. After her guests excused
themselves (clearly made uncomfortable by her roommate), her roommate went
on and told her "Don't you EVER bring one of THEM in this room".

My wife's friend finished the last few months of her semester and
transferred, elsewhere.

>Have you not read anything lately? That stupid catch-phrase came out in the
>60's, when queers first started to come above ground as part of the queer
>rights movement. It was bogus then and it is bogus now.

Wow,,, the 'Q' word rolls off of your tongue as the 'N' word, I'd guess.
What are you so afraid of? <jeesh>

>At this point, we don't know how many people are "born gay" and how many
>adopt a gay lifestyle for whatever reason, including an inability to cope
>with their straight sexuality.

I assume you like women, right? Just today,,,, without acting on it,,, I
want you to think about relating sexually with other males ------ WHAT ?
You can't do it? Sure ya can,,, it's a flexible 'choice' according to you.
<shaking my head>

If you weren't so afraid of 'catching' being gay and actually spoke with
regular gay citizens, you would find that they are as hard-wired into their
sexuality as you are (presumably) to women. I just don't get your 'fear'.

> Showing the "gay lifestyle" as an attractive choice is probably not a good
> idea for a pubescent child who is wrestling
>with their own sexuality.

It's not being presented as an attractive or unattractive. Rather it is
being presented as yet another variation of human interaction and just as
valid as a relationship. Realistically, since there are people like you in
the world, why would anyone 'choose' (your word, not mine) to be gay - you
are made fun of, pointed at, called cruel names and in some parts of our
country killed by 'joe-bobs'. No one would CHOOSE to be gay, with all the
prejudice out there. They simply 'are' what they are. Just like you and I
can't 'help' our orientation.

>Since you find no perils in associating with gays, why don't you start
>dropping your own child off in the Castro on Saturday afternoons. I'm sure
>some of the boys over there will be happy to teach him a lot of fun things.

We bring him into the Castro, often, during celebrations and events. We
would no more leave our nine year old on the street corner in the Castro
anymore than we would leave him alone in any other part of town, by himself.
Though we HAVE left him (without second thought) in the company of Gay &
Lesbian friends without a concern, because we knew the persons he was with,
were fine people. I also want to point out that (with the exception of
Catholic Priests) the majority of child molesters of boys AND girls are
straight men married to women in heterosexual relationships.

>With regard to priests, always remember this: it's cheaper to pay than to
>fight, and you don't get near as much publicity. And you will notice that a
>lot of these so-called "victims" suffer from a lot of mental problems.

REALLY????, they suffer from mental problems after having been sexually
assaulted as a child by a man they have been taught to trust - MY
GOODNESS,,,, what IS wrong with them <jeesh> .... (just shaking my head at
your paragraph) :(

--
--
=-----
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 -

>Do you have any idea what you are talking about?

Yeah,,, unlike you I'm not a fearful paranoid, crowding arms into his
basement because he is SO sure he is going to 'liberate' the world should
the government ever (however unlikely) turn against its' citizens.. With
the weaponry our government has, it would squash you like an insignificant
bug on the windshield before you could exhale.

--
--
=-----
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 -

"Newps" > wrote in message
...
> So which is it? Is the poll a fact or nearly a fact?

I've already said. Please keep up. The poll is a fact. They are 100%
correct about the fact they represent. They are reasonably (and more
importantly, usefully) close to 100% correct about the facts that they ask
about.

If you're having trouble distinguishing between the two, I recommend you
find a decent statistics book.

"Bill Denton" > wrote in message
...
> "Homophobe"; the last refuge of the village idiot.

Ahh, yes. The ad hominem attack. The last refuge of the person without a
legitimate argument.

> I've never heard an intelligent person use that term.

Not my fault. Plenty of intelligent people do.

> Sorry Cecil, I won't argue the amendment. I let it stand on it's own as
> interpreted by the SC. But when someone tries to misinterpret the meaning
> in
> order to further their agenda, I speak up.


But Jeff,,, I have no agenda... There is no 'plot' against you,,,, no
'secret conspiracy' that I'm trying to pull on you. <jeesh> "paranoia WILL
destroy ya" <grin>. I'm just trying to approach the issue, logically.
Also, the Supreme Court upheld the right to bear arms but in their decision
it was not stated that the reason for supporting the right was to assure
that the citizens of the U.S. could overthrow the government. Goodness,
Jeff!
>
> Change the Constitution if you can, but trying to alter the original views
> of Jefferson, Madison, Franklin, et al, by incorrectly using their words
> is
> a sure way to invalidate your argument and doom your cause to failure.

I'm not trying to change the Constitution (unlike Bush and Ashcroft who have
tried to strip away the most basic guarantees with the 'Patriot' Act). I
haven't altered any original views, at all.

But,,,, and I'm asking you to be rational here; do you REALLY think the
reason for the second amendment was that the founding fathers wanted to
assure that the citizenry would have the ability to overthrow the new
government that they were working SO hard to put into place? Jeff?
Really??? Isn't a more likely explanation that they recognized that their
new country didn't have a lot of money to fund purchasing weapons for a
formal army and that they wanted to insure that its' citizens had weaponry
so that they could be called up to fight in the event the new country was
attacked? .. "A well-regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a
free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be
infringed"

--
If their intent was just that citizens had the right to bear arms, they
wouldn't have the line that comes before it. What is unreasonable about
that?

--
=-----
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 think Cecil would soil his undies if he checked out the .408 Cheyenne
> Tactical.

Naw, just more of a man to know that it is the strength and fortitude INSIDE
a man that counts, as well as a strong desire for what is just and what is
right - and that having to own a huge metal appliance is just an attempt to
make-up for something lacking in that man's constitution and confidence.

--
--
=-----
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 can send you a picture, of one, if you'd like? ;)


--
--
=-----
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 -
"Newps" > 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?
>
> Do you even know what a Mauser is?
>

Peter Duniho wrote:

> "Newps" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>So which is it? Is the poll a fact or nearly a fact?
>
>
> I've already said. Please keep up. The poll is a fact. They are 100%
> correct about the fact they represent. They are reasonably (and more
> importantly, usefully) close to 100% correct about the facts that they ask
> about.

Exactly what is "useful" about exit polls taken on election day?
Exactly what is useful about other political polls for that matter,
unless you are a democratic who can't think on his/her own and needs a
poll to tell them what to do. :-)


Matt

Right,,, I got that joe-bob,,,, I was referring to the size of the
ammunition it fires.... Back in your pick-up and go back to your fortified
ground cellar and wait for 'the end'.

--
--
=-----
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 Chapman wrote:

>>Sorry Cecil, I won't argue the amendment. I let it stand on it's own as
>>interpreted by the SC. But when someone tries to misinterpret the meaning
>>in
>>order to further their agenda, I speak up.
>
>
>
> But Jeff,,, I have no agenda... There is no 'plot' against you,,,, no
> 'secret conspiracy' that I'm trying to pull on you. <jeesh> "paranoia WILL
> destroy ya" <grin>. I'm just trying to approach the issue, logically.
> Also, the Supreme Court upheld the right to bear arms but in their decision
> it was not stated that the reason for supporting the right was to assure
> that the citizens of the U.S. could overthrow the government. Goodness,
> Jeff!

No need to restate what is commonly known by anyone at all literate
about the Constitution and those who wrote it.


>>Change the Constitution if you can, but trying to alter the original views
>>of Jefferson, Madison, Franklin, et al, by incorrectly using their words
>>is
>>a sure way to invalidate your argument and doom your cause to failure.
>
>
> I'm not trying to change the Constitution (unlike Bush and Ashcroft who have
> tried to strip away the most basic guarantees with the 'Patriot' Act). I
> haven't altered any original views, at all.

You seem to be trying to interpret the Constitution in ways that the
authors never intended, and that is just as bad as trying to change it
outright.


> But,,,, and I'm asking you to be rational here; do you REALLY think the
> reason for the second amendment was that the founding fathers wanted to
> assure that the citizenry would have the ability to overthrow the new
> government that they were working SO hard to put into place? Jeff?
> Really??? Isn't a more likely explanation that they recognized that their
> new country didn't have a lot of money to fund purchasing weapons for a
> formal army and that they wanted to insure that its' citizens had weaponry
> so that they could be called up to fight in the event the new country was
> attacked? .. "A well-regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a
> free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be
> infringed"

Yes, that is exactly what the founders had in mind. Can't you do a
little research on your own? The comments on the second amendment by
various folks involved with authoring the Constitution are easy to find,
assuming you really want to know the answer.


Matt

> BINGO!!!
> --
> Jim in NC

Yep, Jim in NC, GOOD point!,,,, can YOU say WMD's?

--
--
=-----
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 Chapman" > wrote in message
om...
> > Sorry Cecil, I won't argue the amendment. I let it stand on it's own as
> > interpreted by the SC. But when someone tries to misinterpret the
meaning
> > in
> > order to further their agenda, I speak up.
>
>
> But Jeff,,, I have no agenda... There is no 'plot' against you,,,, no
> 'secret conspiracy' that I'm trying to pull on you. <jeesh> "paranoia
WILL
> destroy ya" <grin>. I'm just trying to approach the issue, logically.
> Also, the Supreme Court upheld the right to bear arms but in their
decision
> it was not stated that the reason for supporting the right was to assure
> that the citizens of the U.S. could overthrow the government. Goodness,
> Jeff!
> >
> > Change the Constitution if you can, but trying to alter the original
views
> > of Jefferson, Madison, Franklin, et al, by incorrectly using their words
> > is
> > a sure way to invalidate your argument and doom your cause to failure.
>
> I'm not trying to change the Constitution (unlike Bush and Ashcroft who
have
> tried to strip away the most basic guarantees with the 'Patriot' Act). I
> haven't altered any original views, at all.
>
> But,,,, and I'm asking you to be rational here; do you REALLY think the
> reason for the second amendment was that the founding fathers wanted to
> assure that the citizenry would have the ability to overthrow the new
> government that they were working SO hard to put into place?

Do you remember this little event in US history called the Revolution? Of
course the founding fathers would want to afford the citizens the
opportunity to overthrow the government if need be. THEY HAD JUST DONE IT
AND WERE INTELLIGENT ENOUGH TO KNOW IT MIGHT NEED TO HAPPEN AGAIN! Consider
what was happening in other countries around that time. Sheesh, talk about
rational.

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
> Exactly what is "useful" about exit polls taken on election day? Exactly
> what is useful about other political polls for that matter, unless you are
> a democratic who can't think on his/her own and needs a poll to tell them
> what to do. :-)
>
>
> Matt
>

Democrats and Republicans will both heavily use the exit polls. In a couple
of months, a book about the size of a dictionary will come out with all the
exit poll data. Both sides will use the info to figure out why people voted
the way they did, and how they can use it to their advantage in the future.
Exit polls are very accurate when used properly.

Peter Duniho wrote:
> "Newps" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>So which is it? Is the poll a fact or nearly a fact?
>
>
> I've already said. Please keep up. The poll is a fact.

The poll is not a fact. It is potentially a close approximation of a fact.


They are 100%
> correct about the fact they represent.

They are almost never correct about the fact they are trying to represent.

> 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.

I understand, why. Often when people are confronted with the facts that
their feelings are colored by bigotry of one type or another, their first
impulse is to vehemently deny it.
>
> 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.

But they DON"T have equal rights. If their lifetime partner is in the
hospital they have NO legal visiting rights as a spouse would. When their
loved one dies they have NO right to insurance like a 'regular' spouse
would -despite spending decades together as a couple. The list goes on....
This is discrimination Jim and even though they may not be black still makes
it just as wrong and ugly. They don't even have the right to be buried with
their loved one. Sounds like a second class citizen to me, Jim!

>
> 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.

Look above Jim,,,, you REALLY just haven't got a clue.... There are MANY
other rights that they don't have and it all comes from persons like you who
are so afraid that the existence of a gay couple might be a threat to your
sexual orientation or someone else's. Bigotry, Jim,,, not over color, in
your case, but the sexual preference of consenting adults. Why do you give
a flying fish (substitution here) ????? WHAT are you SO afraid of? Your
wife knows you are a straight man - are you afraid that if you agree that
others deserve civil right too, that somehow your sexual orientation will be
questioned? Balderdash!

>
> Hell, they can even fly a high wing airplanes.
>
> But they can't get married and they can't fly low wing planes.

You're right (so far) about the married part, but I know a lesbian couple
who own a Piper Cherokee 140 (definitely a low-wing airplane). Wouldn't you
agree? :)

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.

Bigotry is such an ugly thing,,,, it really doesn't suit, you, Jim. I
never in my wildest dreams pegged you as a bigot :(

>
> --
> 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.

Oral activity (as well as other practices of straight couples) between
consenting heterosexual or homosexual adults still falls under the sodomy
laws of many states to this day, using aberration and 'non-procreative
activity' as the measure.

Here's hoping you have a clue..... ;)

--
--
=-----
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 -

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

Hard to tell, Jim..... Bigots won't let them find out!

--
--
=-----
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 -
"

> 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.

Succinct and to the point! Most excellent reply!

--
--
=-----
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 -
"Terry Bolands" > wrote in message
om...

mike regish wrote:
>
> Isn't an assault weapon anything that holds over a certain number of rounds?
> They can be, and usually are, semi-automatic. I've never heard of the
> assault weapon as being only full automatic.

Be careful with the words. "Assault weapon" and "assault-type weapon" are political
constructs. "Assault rifle" is a military definition.

First off, ammunition is divided by types. Pistol ammo is relatively short and has a
small powder charge. Carbine ammo is slightly longer and more powerful. Rifle ammo is
longer and more powerful than carbine ammo. Machine gun ammo is the most powerful of
the "small arms" ammo. Any weapon that uses a rifle cartridge is called a rifle, and
only rifles use rifle cartridges. So, by definition, an assault rifle uses rifle
ammo.

Then we get to the word "assault". In military parlance, an assault is an attack on
an objective. An assault rifle is a rifle designed to be used during the assault. By
definition, it is a relatively light weapon with a relatively short barrel, an
effective range of roughly 300 yards, and is capable of fully automatic fire. Most of
them are also capable of semi-automatic fire to save ammunition.

In the late '80s, organizations like HCI latched onto the term and began agitating to
ban "assault rifles". The problem was that these were already effectively illegal. It
took about five years, but they and the politicos came up with the term "assault type
weapons" to describe any semi-automatic weapon that resembles a true assault rifle.
As an example, the AR-15 is a semi that looks almost identical to the military M-16
(a full auto assault rifle). Where things really get confusing is with imported
firearms. The Kalashnikov company makes fully automatic AK-47s for military use and
semi-automatic versions for civilian sale, but both are called AK-47s.

Once they got a bill rolling in the Clinton administration, the politicos threw in a
number of extras (for example, "high capacity" magazines). That law recently expired.
The proposed "assault weapons" ban that recently failed to pass would have banned any
semi-automatic rifle that looks like a military weapon, rifle and shotgun stocks with
"pistol grips", "high capacity" magazines, and a number of other items.

When Kerry says (as he did) "I have never been tempted to go hunting with a military
style assault weapon", I'm sure he's correct. Neither have I. But the implication
that his bill would have made these illegal is a lie. Military style assault weapons
are fully automatic and have never been available to the common U.S. citizen.

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

Earl Grieda wrote:
>
> Please provide a referance to back up your etymological evolution of these
> terms.

Look up "militia" in the OED for starters.

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:
>
> I go back to what I said before. The average citizen has NO need to have
> armor piercing bullets (or rounds that will effectively do the same).

And they don't have any. The big problem is people like Boxer who label commonly used
ammunition "armor piercing" and play people like you for suckers.

> Any
> cop-friend will tell you is to get a shotgun for home protection, you just
> point in the 'general direction' and you'll hit the intruder.

Bull****! A shotgun hits where you point it, and you'd better make damn sure you're
pointing it exactly where you want it to hit. The shot pattern from my 12 gauge will
be about 2" wide at 20'. Point that "in the general direction" of somebody, you're
just going to punch holes in the walls.

> I've just been saying that Joe Bob down the street
> doesn't need a shoulder fired missile, armor piercing bullets, automatic
> weapons to defend his/her home.

And these are not available in the U.S. and have not been for many decades.

> But,,,, an AK-47???

The semi-automatic version of the AK-47 is a fine weapon for hunting an animal that
weighs about 180 pounds, especially in brush. That's a deer, by the way.

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

The reason most intelligent people don't throw "homophobe" around is because
they actually know what it means, which you obviously don't. Homophobia
refers to a fear of homosexuals or prejudice toward homosexual. Go back and
take another look at my original post and tell me where I exhibited any
homophobia. If you still see it, have some of your liberal dogma drained off
and replaced with brains, and you should be able to get it.

You mentioned a black man running for governor in Virginia, and people
saying they wouldn't vote for "one of them". Well, the man's name was Doug
Wilder, and I lived in Richmond when he was running. None of my friends had
any problem voting for him, but the fact that a lot of my friends were black
might have had something to do with it!

But Governor Wilder won, so there must not have been too many people
unwilling to vote for him. And when he was inaugurated, there was a large
parade which passed right by my apartment. It was planned, but there just
happened to be three naked lesbians sitting around my living room, and when
we saw the parade the women thought it would be great fun to lean out of my
window and flash the Governor. The Governor, the State Police, everybody was
staring at my window and waving.

A few days later I was in the bar next to my apartment where the state
legislators hung out, and Governor Wilder came in. Someone introduced me to
him, and I told him that the flashing was being done from my apartment. He
was laughing big time, and he told me he was pretty excited about being
elected, but he was trying to be somewhat restrained during the parade, and
then he looked up and saw wall-to-wall titties and he was afraid of falling
out of the car. He called one of his aides over and jokingly asked if there
were any more Cabinet positions because they definitely needed me in the
administration. He then told the aide to give me a business card, I gave him
mine, and the Governor told me if I ever needed any assistance dealing with
state government I should call his aide and he would get me taken care of. A
couple of times I did call the aide about problems I was having with
governmental agencies, and he got things cleared right up.

I also used to spend a lot of time in a bar called "Babes", which was about
the largest lesbian bar in Virginia outside of the DC metro area. They
really liked having me in there and constantly comped me drinks. They liked
me because I'm a fairly large guy, I didn't hit on the customers, and I
could calmly explain things to the occasional group of straight guys who
came in and thought they had died and gone to heaven when they saw a bunch
of women shooting pool with their boobs hanging out.

I live in Chicago now, and we have a neighborhood known as "Boy's Town",
which is about the third or forth largest gay "district" in the US. I live
in a high-rise about four blocks from there. We have 14 apartments on my
floor: one apartment is occupied by a single straight woman, one is occupied
by a lesbian couple, my girlfriend and I occupy one, and the other 11 are
occupied by either single gay males or gay male couples. Additionally, about
25% of the rest of the building is occupied by gay males.

I talk to a lot of gay people and a lot of black people every day.

I was initially raised in an unprejudiced home, but when I started junior
high in Arkansas I picked up on the bigotry that most of the kids around me
possessed. But I got involved in some civil rights activities and gay rights
activities and got rid of the bias. But I did it by thinking and talking to
people, not by just sitting there and letting someone force-feed liberal
dogma to me.






"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
> "Bill Denton" > wrote in message
> ...
> > "Homophobe"; the last refuge of the village idiot.
>
> Ahh, yes. The ad hominem attack. The last refuge of the person without a
> legitimate argument.
>
> > I've never heard an intelligent person use that term.
>
> Not my fault. Plenty of intelligent people do.
>
>

Cecil Chapman wrote:
>
> Right,,, I got that joe-bob,,,, I was referring to the size of the
> ammunition it fires....

So, tell us, little man. What size is that?

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 in message
om...
> >Do you have any idea what you are talking about?
>
> Yeah,,, unlike you I'm not a fearful paranoid, crowding arms into his
> basement because he is SO sure he is going to 'liberate' the world should
> the government ever (however unlikely) turn against its' citizens.. With
> the weaponry our government has, it would squash you like an insignificant
> bug on the windshield before you could exhale.

I am not a fearful paranoid... (redundant - just like the three commas you
have there). I am not crowding arms into my basement. I exercise my right
to bear arms. I would also like to defend myself if it ever comes to that.
(most likely against some bad guys you liberals let out of jail and allowed
to live for free on gubment dole, though he may come looking for extra money
in my house and I would like to protect myself) Did you perhaps consider
that people who own firearms might be rational, or do you believe all the
hype and misinformation you see and hear?

Your ill-advised logic and misunderstanding of firearms is baffling. Your
point was that it is ok to have a shotgun or a hunting rifle, but not an
AK47/"assault" rifle. What logic made you come to that conclusion? A
typical hunting rifle is more firepower than the AKs available in gun
stores.

Wake up.

The following is one of my favorites, though it is a paraphrase of the
original...

A vote for gun control is a vote for more women to get raped.


>
> --
> --
> =-----
> 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 Chapman" > wrote in message
om...
>> Sorry Cecil, I won't argue the amendment. I let it stand on it's own as
>> interpreted by the SC. But when someone tries to misinterpret the meaning
>> in
>> order to further their agenda, I speak up.
>
>
> But Jeff,,, I have no agenda... There is no 'plot' against you,,,, no
> 'secret conspiracy' that I'm trying to pull on you. <jeesh> "paranoia
> WILL destroy ya" <grin>. I'm just trying to approach the issue,
> logically. Also, the Supreme Court upheld the right to bear arms but in
> their decision it was not stated that the reason for supporting the right
> was to assure that the citizens of the U.S. could overthrow the
> government. Goodness, Jeff!
>>
>> Change the Constitution if you can, but trying to alter the original
>> views
>> of Jefferson, Madison, Franklin, et al, by incorrectly using their words
>> is
>> a sure way to invalidate your argument and doom your cause to failure.
>
> I'm not trying to change the Constitution (unlike Bush and Ashcroft who
> have tried to strip away the most basic guarantees with the 'Patriot'
> Act). I haven't altered any original views, at all.
>
> But,,,, and I'm asking you to be rational here; do you REALLY think the
> reason for the second amendment was that the founding fathers wanted to
> assure that the citizenry would have the ability to overthrow the new
> government that they were working SO hard to put into place? Jeff?
> Really??? Isn't a more likely explanation that they recognized that their
> new country didn't have a lot of money to fund purchasing weapons for a
> formal army and that they wanted to insure that its' citizens had weaponry
> so that they could be called up to fight in the event the new country was
> attacked? .. "A well-regulated Militia being necessary to the security of
> a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be
> infringed"


You need to get a clue.

>
> --
> If their intent was just that citizens had the right to bear arms, they
> wouldn't have the line that comes before it. What is unreasonable about
> that?
>
> --
> =-----
> 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 -
>

On Sun, 7 Nov 2004 07:30:05 +0100 (CET), Nomen Nescio wrote:

> I often carry a concealed .40 cal.

Is that legal where you live?

--
Steve
E-mail: steve at flyingtigerwebdesign dot com
Hong Kong, 07/11/2004 15:21:05

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> Yes, absolutely. Fortunately, for all of its problems, we've enjoyed
> pretty good government ... even when the democrats were in control. :-)
> However, the possibility always exists that our government will move to
> a point where we must start again.

A democracy (actually a Constitutional Republic) like ours only gets into
situations like we have (and might encounter) if the people allow it.

Don't blame the Representatives, or Senate, the executives or even the
bureaucracy. NONE of them was put in place by a coup. Rather, blame your
neighbors that vote to allow such practices that are contrary to the supreme
law, or to your ancestors that started taking apart the law and demanding
statist practices over 100 years ago.

> I'll admit that I have a hard time
> compehending that myself, but the writers of the Constitution were
> keenly aware of this issue!

The put a lot more trustin "the people" than was evidently justified by
today state of affairs.

In article >,
"Bill Denton" > wrote:

> The reason most intelligent people don't throw "homophobe" around is because
> they actually know what it means, which you obviously don't. Homophobia
> refers to a fear of homosexuals or prejudice toward homosexual.

When did "homophobe" begin to mean "prejudice toward homosexual."
Wouldn't it have originally meant merely (irrational?) fear of
homosexuals? The prejudice part came through common (mis)use of
the word.

--
Bob Noel

On Sun, 07 Nov 2004 02:35:52 GMT, Cecil Chapman wrote:

>Since Iraq didn't even have a missile delivery system, much less the 'WMD's,
>I don't even see how they could be viewed as a hostile threat to the U.S.

aren't we a little bit unamerican and unpatriotic now?

>The hypocrisy I'm trying to point out is; Bush keeps telling us how we are
>there to free the Iraqi's from repression (there is NO doubt, that many
>dissidents were brutally treated),,,

just like in Americanistan: those in Guantanamo Bay (hm, no US citizens, so
no problem there ...) and those held after 9/11 (with no physical threat, I
hope, but still ... and: not white but colored, a minority, also no problem
there). And Patriot Act allows the government to remove your rights you
enjoy as a US citizen without appeal. Hellloooo! Anybody home??!??

> but what about the mass genocide that
>is going on RIGHT NOW (and has been going on for some time) in parts of
>Africa.

This is only leftist UN propaganda!

> Why aren't we saving them? Could it be that there country has no
>economic benefits to offer us and that,,, after all,, it is "just" black
>skinned people dying over there?

nah, they don't like the gen-manipulated seeds from the US ...
*******s. they should be happy about what good we bring to the world.

#m

irony found? goooood.

--
Buck Fush!

On Sun, 07 Nov 2004 03:11:44 GMT, "Richard Hertz" <no one@no one.com>
wrote:

>I have an "AK-47" or rather the semi auto version from Romania. It is no
>more lethal (in fact less so) than a decent hunting rifle. What people seem

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>to object to is the appearance of it.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

very true.
we here tend to say: "the smaller the dick, the bigger the gun"

*muahahaha*


#m

(and now you can start call me names *grin*)


--
Buck Fush!

On Sun, 07 Nov 2004 06:04:55 GMT, "Richard Hertz" <no one@no one.com>
wrote:

>I am not a fearful paranoid... (redundant - just like the three commas you
>have there). I am not crowding arms into my basement. I exercise my right
>to bear arms. I would also like to defend myself if it ever comes to that.


nowing you are that armored I'd only throw a grenade in your house if I
want to come after you. Hm, you have to increase your weapons , then.
[...many upgrades later...] everybody has his personal nuke at home ... do
you feel safer now? Do you feel save knowing that Russia, USA and some
other countries are able to launch nukes? Are you happy to know your
neighbor has some riffles at home (and likes to drink more than is good for
him)?

confused?

well ...


#m

--
Buck Fush!

On Sun, 07 Nov 2004 04:20:45 GMT, Cecil Chapman wrote:

>Oral activity (as well as other practices of straight couples) between
>consenting heterosexual or homosexual adults still falls under the sodomy
>laws of many states to this day, using aberration and 'non-procreative
>activity' as the measure.

Connersville, WI: No man shall shoot of a gun while his female partner is
having a sexual orgasm.
--> http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Parthenon/6528/shaunlaws.htm

#m
--
Buck Fush!

Matt Barrow wrote:
> "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Yes, absolutely. Fortunately, for all of its problems, we've enjoyed
>>pretty good government ... even when the democrats were in control. :-)
>>However, the possibility always exists that our government will move to
>>a point where we must start again.
>
>
> A democracy (actually a Constitutional Republic) like ours only gets into
> situations like we have (and might encounter) if the people allow it.

That is true to a large degree, but it was also true in Europe from
whence our founders fled. However, we do have a lot of "legislation"
now effectively occurring from the bence from judges appointed (not
elected!) for life. This is a lot harder for the people to stop anytime
soon.


> Don't blame the Representatives, or Senate, the executives or even the
> bureaucracy. NONE of them was put in place by a coup. Rather, blame your
> neighbors that vote to allow such practices that are contrary to the supreme
> law, or to your ancestors that started taking apart the law and demanding
> statist practices over 100 years ago.

I wasn't talking about blaming anyone, I was simply stating the purpose
of the Constitution. It is to protect the people from a government run
amok.


>> I'll admit that I have a hard time
>>compehending that myself, but the writers of the Constitution were
>>keenly aware of this issue!
>
>
> The put a lot more trustin "the people" than was evidently justified by
> today state of affairs.

Well, yes and no. They tried to keep the peoples' involvement somewhat
at arms length. I believe that is why we have a Republic rather than a
true democracy. However, do governmental design is perfect and ours is
degrading already as people will always vote for themselves more money
than they want to put in via taxes. Once you create an entitlement
society, which the "new deal" and the "great society" began, you are on
the path to destruction, even with a government as well designed as ours.


Matt

"Martin Hotze" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 07 Nov 2004 03:11:44 GMT, "Richard Hertz" <no one@no one.com>
> wrote:
>
>>I have an "AK-47" or rather the semi auto version from Romania. It is no
>>more lethal (in fact less so) than a decent hunting rifle. What people
>>seem
>
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>to object to is the appearance of it.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> very true.
> we here tend to say: "the smaller the dick, the bigger the gun"

You can say what you will, I care not. Again, you ignorant gun haters have
no idea what you are talking about - the ak is not a "big gun."


>
> *muahahaha*
>
>
> #m
>
> (and now you can start call me names *grin*)

I would just rather point out your lack of ability to make a proper
sentence.

>
>
> --
> Buck Fush!

"Martin Hotze" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 07 Nov 2004 06:04:55 GMT, "Richard Hertz" <no one@no one.com>
> wrote:
>
>>I am not a fearful paranoid... (redundant - just like the three commas you
>>have there). I am not crowding arms into my basement. I exercise my
>>right
>>to bear arms. I would also like to defend myself if it ever comes to
>>that.
>
>
> nowing you are that armored I'd only throw a grenade in your house if I
> want to come after you. Hm, you have to increase your weapons , then.
> [...many upgrades later...] everybody has his personal nuke at home ... do
> you feel safer now? Do you feel save knowing that Russia, USA and some
> other countries are able to launch nukes? Are you happy to know your
> neighbor has some riffles at home (and likes to drink more than is good
> for
> him)?


If a person really wants to kill me then that is criminal. If a neighbor of
mine has "riffles" I should certainly think he has been drinking. I feel
safe (not save) knowing that the US has the military ability to thwart any
aggressor, sure. Your logic is baffling. Truly. I did not get up to the
point where everyone has a "personal nuke."

The US and USSR played out a classic arms race. When one has to deal with
evil governments then one has to have a deterrant. Nukes were that
deterrant for both sides. (They of course felt we were evil, and I hope I
don't have to explain whose side was right)

>
> confused?

No, but apparently you are.

>
> well ...
>
>
> #m
>
> --
> Buck Fush!

On Sun, 07 Nov 2004 14:02:24 GMT, "Richard Hertz" <no one@no one.com>
wrote in >::

>
>>
>> (and now you can start call me names *grin*)
>
>I would just rather point out your lack of ability to make a proper
>sentence.

And I will just point out that this is a worldwide forum, and for many
English is not their first language.

"Cecil Chapman" > wrote in message
. com
>
> Since Iraq didn't even have a missile delivery system, much less the
> 'WMD's, I don't even see how they could be viewed as a hostile threat
> to the U.S.

I was very careful in not saying they were a threat to the US. I did call
it a "hostile country". With over 1100 US soldiers dead, it's obvious there
are elements there who did not welcome us with open arms.

> The hypocrisy I'm trying to point out is; Bush keeps
> telling us how we are there to free the Iraqi's from repression
> (there is NO doubt, that many dissidents were brutally treated),,,
> but what about the mass genocide that is going on RIGHT NOW (and has
> been going on for some time) in parts of Africa.

This so-called hypocrisy is a long-standing liberal argument - and applies
to Democrat administrations as much as Republican. It does have a certain
appeal. After all, if we could stop the ethnic cleansing in the former
Yugoslavia, why not in Rwanda? If we deposed a brutal dictator in Panama,
why not Liberia? If we can take over Baghdad, why not Khartoum?

> Why aren't we saving them? Could it be that there country has no economic
> benefits
> to offer us and that,,, after all,, it is "just" black skinned
> people dying over there?

If Sudan were a major trading partner with the US or our allies, I have no
doubt we'd be paying much closer attention to the situation there. However,
to say that we went into Iraq "for the oil" is simply specious - and to
suggest they're "'just' black-skinned people dying" is nothing more than a
lame attempt to play on "white guilt".

Yes, it's a sad fact that our geopolitical decisions - like all nations -
are driven by geopolitical concerns like who are our trading partners and
who are our allies.

As for Iraq, I happen to agree with the idea that having a stable republican
(note the small "r") government in place would be a stabilizing influence on
the region. Bush made some really bad arguments for going in - and I was
one of those saying "why now?" when he was making his case. However, we're
there now and we can't just leave it a mess.

In the meantime, if Sudan's situation weighs so heavily on your mind, I'm
sure the subjects of the brutality wouldn't mind your showing up with a
rifle in your hand... :)

> Significant margin? Not quite,,,, 51 to 48 percent is hardly a
> national mandate - in fact it reveals a deeply divided country.

Again, I chose my words carefully. A three percent margin isn't a "large"
margin, but is nonetheless "significant" - especially considering this is
the first Presidential election in 16 years where the winner received more
than 50% of the popular vote.

> Not to worry,,,, Congress is investigating Halliburton as we
> speak.........

hmph

Where were the investigations when Clinton awarded the multi-billion dollar
"no-bid contract" to none other than Haliburton?

Look up the facts on the award, why it was awarded and how they followed the
rules, then tell me what was wrong with that. This lame attempt to link the
award to Cheney's Vice Presidency is a red herring.

Now, if you want to talk about overcharges or other wrongdoing, that's open
for discussion. The award itself was legitimate.

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

On Sun, 7 Nov 2004 09:29:04 -0500, "John T" > wrote in
>::

>I was very careful in not saying they were a threat to the US. I did call
>it a "hostile country". With over 1100 US soldiers dead, it's obvious there
>are elements there who did not welcome us with open arms.

If the USA is to wage war against all "hostile countries," we will
soon find ourselves bankrupt. Face it, baby Bush chose to exercise
his war powers to avenge the assassination attempt on his father, to
make sure that the anthrax provided Sadam by Rumsfeld during daddy
Bush's reign was neutralized, and to create "war president" status to
assure a Republican victory in the election.

Now we and our progeny can pay for his folly for generations to come.
:-(


Get your head out of the sand, and see this motion picture:
http://www.bushsbrain.com/reviews.htm

Look at: www.dictionary.com

And it's really not a descriptive word anymore; the left has turned it into
an epithet.



"Bob Noel" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Bill Denton" > wrote:
>
> > The reason most intelligent people don't throw "homophobe" around is
because
> > they actually know what it means, which you obviously don't. Homophobia
> > refers to a fear of homosexuals or prejudice toward homosexual.
>
> When did "homophobe" begin to mean "prejudice toward homosexual."
> Wouldn't it have originally meant merely (irrational?) fear of
> homosexuals? The prejudice part came through common (mis)use of
> the word.
>
> --
> Bob Noel

On Sun, 7 Nov 2004 09:29:04 -0500, John T wrote:

>As for Iraq, I happen to agree with the idea that having a stable republican
>(note the small "r") government in place would be a stabilizing influence on
>the region.


they haven't had such a thing for how long? 3000 years? and now you truly
believe that they want one? and you believe that they more likely want one
if it is shoved up their asses?

#m

--
Buck Fush!

On Sun, 07 Nov 2004 14:07:42 GMT, "Richard Hertz" <no one@no one.com>
wrote:

>If a person really wants to kill me then that is criminal.


true.
and if he has no weapon at hand he/she first has to buy/steal one.

> If a neighbor of
>mine has "riffles" I should certainly think he has been drinking. I feel
>safe (not save) knowing that the US has the military ability to thwart any
>aggressor, sure.

it is ok for me that a country operates a military that is able to defend
itself from _agressors_.

>The US and USSR played out a classic arms race. When one has to deal with
>evil governments then one has to have a deterrant. Nukes were that
>deterrant for both sides. (They of course felt we were evil, and I hope I
>don't have to explain whose side was right)

it is always a matter of your viewpoint :-) oly winning the arms race
doesn't make you the one with the white hat automatically.

#m
--
Buck Fush!

Matt Whiting > writes:
> Exactly what is "useful" about exit polls taken on election day?

One use of exit polls is to check the accuracy of the election. As a
pilot, you probably appreciate the value of redundant systems. The
exit poll data can give you an indication of a problem in the
electoral polling process.

If the election result and the polling data radically disagree, it is
probably worthwhile to look closely at both the election and the exit
poll to figure out the source of error...

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

My comments in text...

"Cecil Chapman" > wrote in message
. com...
> > I used to have a girlfriend
>
> I'll bet you did,,, and then she realized you were a racist and off she
> went - there's not much tolerance out here for mindless intolerance

I guess "off she went" is appropriate. She slid off a road and hit the end
of a concrete bridge. Yea, she left me, and a lot of other people who loved
her.

Asshole.


>
> >actually saw a black person was when
> >she went to Oakland. I'm afraid you may be a victim of that same
syndrome.
>
> Not so,,, our former mayor (who kept getting reelected until he ran
against
> term limits - he was one of our finest mayors and did great things for our
> city) of San Francisco, was definitely quite black! Also, you've
obviously
> never been in San Francisco for any appreciable length of time,,, I grew
up
> here.

And Willie Brown dropped by your house how often? Just because you had a
black mayor doesn't mean you actually saw a black person. Or that your
conversation went beyond: "I'll have a Big Mac".

And what I wrote was not intended to be a literal statement. Good writers
can write that; good readers can recognize it.



>
> One of my wife's coworkers related a story where she was attending a
college
> in the South and was amazed to see on the public bulletin board notices
> regarding KKK meetings. Being from L.A. and Northern California, she
> developed friendships with the blacks on campus. Then one day, she
invited
> two of her black girlfriends over to her dorm room. Her roommate wouldn't
> say a word but would just glare at her guests. After her guests excused
> themselves (clearly made uncomfortable by her roommate), her roommate went
> on and told her "Don't you EVER bring one of THEM in this room".
>
> My wife's friend finished the last few months of her semester and
> transferred, elsewhere.

I didn't say there were NO racists in the South. I said that the South is
probably less racist than the rest of the nation.

And you didn't mention when your wife's coworker attended college. If it was
1955 I wouldn't find it surprising. But the next door neighbor of one of my
third cousin's best friends said it didn't happen anyway.



>
> >Have you not read anything lately? That stupid catch-phrase came out in
the
> >60's, when queers first started to come above ground as part of the queer
> >rights movement. It was bogus then and it is bogus now.
>
> Wow,,, the 'Q' word rolls off of your tongue as the 'N' word, I'd guess.
> What are you so afraid of? <jeesh>

I was around when the movement started; the term "gay" was not yet in wide
use. It was known as "Queer Rights". And "queer" and "******" are used
within their respective groups; if you are accepted by those groups you are
allowed to use the terms, also. So, sometimes in the early evening I'll come
out of my building and see four or five of my gay neighbors waiting for
cabs, and I'll say something like: "What's this? Queers night out?" And they
will usually respond with something like how much fun I'd have if I weren't
such a breeder.

And one funny: around the time that "gay" was beginning to "kick in", I was
having a drink with a homosexual friend of mine. I happened to use the term
"gay" and my friend just totally went off: "Gay? Gay? What the hell do you
mean by Gay? I'm not Gay, I'm a depressed queer!"




>
> >At this point, we don't know how many people are "born gay" and how many
> >adopt a gay lifestyle for whatever reason, including an inability to cope
> >with their straight sexuality.
>
> I assume you like women, right? Just today,,,, without acting on it,,, I
> want you to think about relating sexually with other males ------ WHAT ?
> You can't do it? Sure ya can,,, it's a flexible 'choice' according to
you.
> <shaking my head>
>
> If you weren't so afraid of 'catching' being gay and actually spoke with
> regular gay citizens, you would find that they are as hard-wired into
their
> sexuality as you are (presumably) to women. I just don't get your 'fear'.

I resolved whatever sexuality issues I might have had a long time ago. And I
have spent enough time with homosexuals to have caught "being gay" a long
time ago if such a thing were possible. And actually, becoming a lesbian has
always seemed like an attractive prospect.



>
> > Showing the "gay lifestyle" as an attractive choice is probably not a
good
> > idea for a pubescent child who is wrestling
> >with their own sexuality.
>
> It's not being presented as an attractive or unattractive. Rather it is
> being presented as yet another variation of human interaction and just as
> valid as a relationship. Realistically, since there are people like you
in
> the world, why would anyone 'choose' (your word, not mine) to be gay - you
> are made fun of, pointed at, called cruel names and in some parts of our
> country killed by 'joe-bobs'. No one would CHOOSE to be gay, with all the
> prejudice out there. They simply 'are' what they are. Just like you and I
> can't 'help' our orientation.

"Will & Grace", "Ellen", "Elton John", "Ru Paul", "If These Walls Could
Talk" and many other entertainment personalities and programs portray a
"fun" side to homosexuality. I don't watch network TV but if I did I'm sure
I would find many more. And I'm sure you think these shows just happened to
show up on the networks when they did.



>
> >Since you find no perils in associating with gays, why don't you start
> >dropping your own child off in the Castro on Saturday afternoons. I'm
sure
> >some of the boys over there will be happy to teach him a lot of fun
things.
>
> We bring him into the Castro, often, during celebrations and events. We
> would no more leave our nine year old on the street corner in the Castro
> anymore than we would leave him alone in any other part of town, by
himself.
> Though we HAVE left him (without second thought) in the company of Gay &
> Lesbian friends without a concern, because we knew the persons he was
with,
> were fine people. I also want to point out that (with the exception of
> Catholic Priests) the majority of child molesters of boys AND girls are
> straight men married to women in heterosexual relationships.

Child molesters were not part of my discussion, as that has nothing to do
with homosexuality.



>
> >With regard to priests, always remember this: it's cheaper to pay than to
> >fight, and you don't get near as much publicity. And you will notice that
a
> >lot of these so-called "victims" suffer from a lot of mental problems.
>
> REALLY????, they suffer from mental problems after having been sexually
> assaulted as a child by a man they have been taught to trust - MY
> GOODNESS,,,, what IS wrong with them <jeesh> .... (just shaking my head
at
> your paragraph) :(

You wouldn't be shaking your head if you had actually done some research on
the subject. Research indicated that the molestation itself does not lead to
any mental health problems for the children. A child who is well-balanced
and stable prior to being molested will be well-balanced and stable after
being molested. Mental health issues develop when the parents and/or
caregivers overreact. In the case of children molested by priests, the
events are kept secret, so there is no overreaction and mental health issues
do not develop, in most cases. So a lot of these kids COME INTO the
molestation situation with a lot of mental health issues. Absent or abusive
fathers, incest and many other factors can lead to mental health issues and
drive a child to seek a male role model; and a priest makes a good prospect.

And you will notice that a disproportionate number of the kids molested by
priests are homosexual as teens and adults. A lot of these children are not
old enough to have a fully-developed concept of sexual orientation. Having a
man engage in sexual activity with them does not trigger the same emotional
reactions that would be triggered in an adult. To the child, it is just
something that feels good. So a MAN = PLEASURE dynamic develops, which the
child carries on into adulthood. Still want to tell me it's not catching?



>
> --
> --
> =-----
> 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 -
>
>

Christopher Brian Colohan wrote:
> Matt Whiting > writes:
>
>>Exactly what is "useful" about exit polls taken on election day?
>
>
> One use of exit polls is to check the accuracy of the election. As a
> pilot, you probably appreciate the value of redundant systems. The
> exit poll data can give you an indication of a problem in the
> electoral polling process.
>
> If the election result and the polling data radically disagree, it is
> probably worthwhile to look closely at both the election and the exit
> poll to figure out the source of error...
>
> Chris


I disagree with this. Exit polls are not taken by every person that
votes. I don't participate in them for instance. They only exist so
that the media has something to report throughout the day instead of
just reminding everyone when the polls close and watching the clock in
anticipation. I for one believe the media should keeps its mouth shut
and not even talk about the election other than reminding everyone it is
election day until states are finalized.

Brooks Hagenow > writes:

> Christopher Brian Colohan wrote:
> > Matt Whiting > writes:
> > > Exactly what is "useful" about exit polls taken on election day?
> >
> > One use of exit polls is to check the accuracy of the election.
> > As a pilot, you probably appreciate the value of redundant
> > systems. The exit poll data can give you an indication of a
> > problem in the electoral polling process.
> >
> > If the election result and the polling data radically disagree, it
> > is probably worthwhile to look closely at both the election and
> > the exit poll to figure out the source of error...
>
> I disagree with this. Exit polls are not taken by every person that
> votes. I don't participate in them for instance.

I'm confused -- what are you disagreeing with? Are you arguing that
any source of inaccuracy (no matter how small) in the polls
invalidates their usefulness as an indicator? Why?

If you can estimate or measure the potential error from people
refusing to participate then you can adjust your error bounds on the
polling data.

For example, lets say that the exit polls at my local firehouse showed
that 90% of folks voted for Joe the garbageman, and only 10% voted for
Bob the fireman for our new position of block captain. If the
election results showed that Bob the fireman won by a landslide, I
would want to know why! It may be a problem in the polls, but perhaps
something fishy was going on at the firehouse... Are you arguing that
when it looks like there may be a problem it is better to look the
other way?

> They only exist so that the media has something to report throughout
> the day instead of just reminding everyone when the polls close and
> watching the clock in anticipation. I for one believe the media
> should keeps its mouth shut and not even talk about the election
> other than reminding everyone it is election day until states are
> finalized.

I strongly agree that the media should not report any election results
(from polls or otherwise) until the election is complete. It is not
fair to the candidates if their reporting influences people's voting
decision.

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

Christopher Brian Colohan wrote:

> Matt Whiting > writes:
>
>>Exactly what is "useful" about exit polls taken on election day?
>
>
> One use of exit polls is to check the accuracy of the election. As a
> pilot, you probably appreciate the value of redundant systems. The
> exit poll data can give you an indication of a problem in the
> electoral polling process.
>
> If the election result and the polling data radically disagree, it is
> probably worthwhile to look closely at both the election and the exit
> poll to figure out the source of error...

I absolutely believe in redundant systems, but only if each system is
itself reliable. Exit polls simply aren't reliable enough for me to
consider them a redundant system.


Matt

In article >,
Christopher Brian Colohan > wrote:

> If you can estimate or measure the potential error from people
> refusing to participate then you can adjust your error bounds on the
> polling data.

and there is the problem - can you really estimate or bound the error
from all the error sources (e.g., people not participating or
deliberately lying to the poll)?

--
Bob Noel

> and there is the problem - can you really estimate or bound the error
> from all the error sources (e.g., people not participating or
> deliberately lying to the poll)?

Yes.

You cannot "bound" the error in an absolute sense, except to say that it's no bigger than the total population, which is useless. However, if a poll is done right, you can estimate the likely error. For example, "95% of the time, the error will be
less than 1%. 98% of the time, the error will be less than 5%" (I'm making these numbers up since they depend on how well the poll is conducted, and how big the sample size is, etc). This is where the standard deviation of the mean comes in as an
estimate of how good your measurement is.

Of course it cannot be used as a "backup" to voting. However, it can (and should) be used as a screening to indicate whether this particular situation warrents closer investigation. IF the actual voting disagrees with the exit poll by enough
(depending on how the poll is conducted), then there is a good chance (though not a certanty) that there is funny business going on somewhere. It could be that the poll is incorrectly reflecting the actual intended (by the voters) results. However,
it could also be that the election incorrectly reports the voters' choices.

Jose
--
Freedom. It seemed like a good idea at the time.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

On 11/6/04 10:35 PM, in article
, "Cecil Chapman"
> wrote:

>> Sorry Cecil, I won't argue the amendment. I let it stand on it's own as
>> interpreted by the SC. But when someone tries to misinterpret the meaning
>> in
>> order to further their agenda, I speak up.
>
>
> But Jeff,,, I have no agenda... There is no 'plot' against you,,,, no
> 'secret conspiracy' that I'm trying to pull on you. <jeesh> "paranoia WILL
> destroy ya" <grin>. I'm just trying to approach the issue, logically.
> Also, the Supreme Court upheld the right to bear arms but in their decision
> it was not stated that the reason for supporting the right was to assure
> that the citizens of the U.S. could overthrow the government. Goodness,
> Jeff!

I wasn't really accusing *you* of having an agenda. You did not try to
change the meaning of the words in the 2nd Amendment. But you were defending
the position of the poster that was doing so. Argue the 2nd Amendment all
you wish. I merely stand as a watchdog to the original intent.

>>
>> Change the Constitution if you can, but trying to alter the original views
>> of Jefferson, Madison, Franklin, et al, by incorrectly using their words
>> is
>> a sure way to invalidate your argument and doom your cause to failure.
>
> I'm not trying to change the Constitution (unlike Bush and Ashcroft who have
> tried to strip away the most basic guarantees with the 'Patriot' Act). I
> haven't altered any original views, at all.
>
> But,,,, and I'm asking you to be rational here; do you REALLY think the
> reason for the second amendment was that the founding fathers wanted to
> assure that the citizenry would have the ability to overthrow the new
> government that they were working SO hard to put into place? Jeff?
> Really??? Isn't a more likely explanation that they recognized that their
> new country didn't have a lot of money to fund purchasing weapons for a
> formal army and that they wanted to insure that its' citizens had weaponry
> so that they could be called up to fight in the event the new country was
> attacked? .. "A well-regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a
> free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be
> infringed"

I have issues just as you do with the Patriot Act. But that isn't the issue
under discussion.

As for your question, rationally yes, I do believe that is one of the
reasons. They stated as much in the Declaration of Independence: "When in
the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve
the political bands which have connected them with another..."
They were able to recognize that governments, even the one that they had
just created, might take a horrible change for the worse, and then: "...it
is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new
Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its
powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their
Safety and Happiness."

They were not so foolish that they did not realize that abolishing and
instituting a new government would involve at least a few exchanges of
gunfire.
--
Jeff 'The Wizard of Draws' Bucchino
Cartoons with a Touch of Magic�
http://www.wizardofdraws.com
http://www.cartoonclipart.com

"Martin Hotze" > wrote in message

>
> they haven't had such a thing for how long? 3000 years? and now you
> truly believe that they want one? and you believe that they more
> likely want one if it is shoved up their asses?

They'll institute the government of their choice. See, that's the
difference between what we intend versus what you perceive. Would it be
preferrable that a government is elected that is our new best friend in the
Middle East? Sure. Is that likely to happen? Only time will tell.

If they *choose* to elect another dictator, at least we can walk away saying
"we gave them their choice".

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

> They'll institute the government of their choice.

And if we don't like it, they will choose again until we do.

Jose
--
Freedom. It seemed like a good idea at the time.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

On Sun, 07 Nov 2004 05:21:40 GMT, "G.R. Patterson III"
> wrote:

>
>
>Cecil Chapman wrote:
>>
>> I go back to what I said before. The average citizen has NO need to have
>> armor piercing bullets (or rounds that will effectively do the same).
>
>And they don't have any. The big problem is people like Boxer who label commonly used
>ammunition "armor piercing" and play people like you for suckers.

You forgot the ones who call the ammo fired in a AK47 as high powered
when they are no more powerful than the low to medium powered
ammunition for deer hunting.

>
>> Any
>> cop-friend will tell you is to get a shotgun for home protection, you just
>> point in the 'general direction' and you'll hit the intruder.

Might scare 'em to death with the noise and muzzle flash indoors but
ya still gotta point the thing at what you want to hit<snicker>
>
>Bull****! A shotgun hits where you point it, and you'd better make damn sure you're
>pointing it exactly where you want it to hit. The shot pattern from my 12 gauge will
>be about 2" wide at 20'. Point that "in the general direction" of somebody, you're
>just going to punch holes in the walls.

True, they don't stop 5 hours down the block but they sure are hard on
the plaster. 2 to 3 inches at 20 feet would be pretty much typical
for an open bore.

I watched, ok... shot with some officers using a double barrel 10Ga.
Even with #8 shot they never did hit a clay pigeon. Sure did make a
lot of noise though.

>
>> I've just been saying that Joe Bob down the street
>> doesn't need a shoulder fired missile, armor piercing bullets, automatic
>> weapons to defend his/her home.
>
>And these are not available in the U.S. and have not been for many decades.

I remember an article in "Guns and Ammo" years back. They purchased a
20mm cannon, had it converted to a bolt action, added a "Hydrochoil
stock", and went plinking with HE ammo. It made that 50 cal sniper
rifle (forget the name of it now) look kinda puny. <LOL> They were
describing how far they were sliding from the recoil when shooting
prone.
>
>> But,,,, an AK-47???

They make a good hunting rifle although a bit bulky. I prefer my old
740 as it's lighter and more powerful. With the AK47 in Michigan you
just have to plug the magazine to 4 plus one in the chamber "as I
recall". You might have to explain to the DNR but it'd be legal. I
can just see a guy carrying one out in the woods with the big magazine
plugged to 4.

>
>The semi-automatic version of the AK-47 is a fine weapon for hunting an animal that
>weighs about 180 pounds, especially in brush. That's a deer, by the way.

Not much bigger than that though. OTOH a friend bagged a Kodiak with
his 44 mag hand gun in Alaska. It wasn't really by choice though.
The Kodiak was trying to remove him from his horse at the time and the
revolver was a whole lot handier than the big bore rifle which was
still in the scabbard. Made the Boon and Crocket records too.

I remember getting one of those deer "way back when". OTOH I bagged
two so far with my cars and one with the Deb. The Deb fared better
than the deer, but it was the biggest I've bagged between the cars,
airplane, and ought six! Even considering it cost over five grand to
replace the gear doors on the passenger side, it was probably a
quarter the cost per pound compared to the hunting<:-))

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com
>
>George Patterson
> If a man gets into a fight 3,000 miles away from home, he *had* to have
> been looking for it.

I encourage you to re-examine your decision, David.

I assume that you occasionally have passengers who's lives depend on your
ability to make mature decisions. If a controller made you angry on IFR
final will you refuse to speak to him? If the weather makes you angry in
an emergency situation will you crawl into the back seat and refuse to fly
the plane? If the answer is no, then I recommend you use that same
discipline and professionalism in this news group and concentrate on the
aviation topics while ignoring that which makes you angry. In other words:
Fly the plane. Ignore the distractions.

If you are going to be a pilot then act like a good one.



Maule Driver wrote:
>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...
>> 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. 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.

It is too bad that Mr. Brooks took seriously what was an obvious parody. I
would never seriously advocate extermination of Democrats.

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...
>
> "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.
>
> It is too bad that Mr. Brooks took seriously what was an obvious parody. I
> would never seriously advocate extermination of Democrats.

However, he may have a point -- he may have taken me seriously because so
many others on these forums appear to genuinely believe that anyone who has
religious beliefs should at least be disenfranchised, if not eliminated
altogether. The advocacy of genocide is a modern liberal trait, but the
liberal reasons that if he thinks genocide is a viable option, then his
conservative opponents must, too. If liberals think that religion must be
exterminated, who can blame them for believing that their opponents think
like they do?

Even then, I did not advocate killing anyone. I suggested in that post that
they violate TFRs, similar to the joke that was making the rounds that
Republicans should drive at night with their lights on to show solidarity,
while Democrats should drive with their lights off. It is astonishing that
anyone claiming intelligence would take such a joke seriously, but it is
telling and apt that Mr. Brooks would.

In article >,
Jose > wrote:

> > and there is the problem - can you really estimate or bound the error
> > from all the error sources (e.g., people not participating or
> > deliberately lying to the poll)?
>
> Yes.
>
> You cannot "bound" the error in an absolute sense, except to say that it's no
> bigger than the total population, which is useless. However, if a poll is
> done right, you can estimate the likely error. For example, "95% of the
> time, the error will be
> less than 1%. 98% of the time, the error will be less than 5%" (I'm making
> these numbers up since they depend on how well the poll is conducted, and how
> big the sample size is, etc). This is where the standard deviation of the
> mean comes in as an
> estimate of how good your measurement is.

This is true only if you know the distribution function.

--
Bob Noel

> This [putting a bound on the likely error] is true
> only if you know the distribution function.

One of course never =knows= the distribution function. However, one can make reasonable estimates ("guesses", if you will) based on ones sampling methods and experience with previous polls (comparing past polls with elections for example). True,
your guess of the distribution function might be off, but if you do things right, it's probably close. How close? Well, there's a distribution function to describe that too. :)

One doesn't even know the sun will come up the next day, but as a working theory it seems to be more than satisfactory. Statistics is not mumbo jumbo, although it is true that real mumbo jumbo can be disguised as statistics.

Jose
--
Freedom. It seemed like a good idea at the time.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.
(note to r.a.student: I only follow r.a.piloting and r.a.ifr, to which this is also posted)

>Seriously, though, from what I know of you from your involvement in the
>aviation groups, you seen to be a likeable, stable individual with solid
>moral
>convictions. Which makes you exactly the type of person that I would like
>to
>see carrying a gun.

Thanks for the kind words! At home, I've got 'em,,, can't carry them in
S.F. though!

--
--
=-----
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 guess "off she went" is appropriate. She slid off a road and hit the end
> of a concrete bridge. Yea, she left me, and a lot of other people who
> loved
> her.
>
> Asshole.

Not likely, but a clever technique to use to turn the gist of a story,,,
almost believed you! Good try, though!

>> And Willie Brown dropped by your house how often? Just because you had a
> black mayor doesn't mean you actually saw a black person. Or that your
> conversation went beyond: "I'll have a Big Mac

You've NEVER been to the city for any appreciable time then or you would
know the demographics of our area - pretty racially mixed - check it out on
the U.S. census site.


> > And you didn't mention when your wife's coworker attended college. If it
> > was
> 1955 I wouldn't find it surprising. But the next door neighbor of one of
> my
> third cousin's best friends said it didn't happen anyway.

Nope,,, less than 11 years ago, she was working on a Masters degree.


>
> And one funny: around the time that "gay" was beginning to "kick in", I
> was
> having a drink with a homosexual friend of mine.

YOU have a gay friend,,,,, <snicker> as if THAT would be very likely!


> Child molesters were not part of my discussion, as that has nothing to do
> with homosexuality.

You just had said, to leave our nine year old in the castro - your
presumption was that someone there would take advantage of him and that, as
far as I understand, would qualify as child molestation.

>
> Research indicated that the molestation itself does not lead to
> any mental health problems for the children.

Yep, right up there on the 'good ol' boy' list, that women really 'enjoy'
being raped. < just shaking my head at you>
You're either just plain hopeless or you are a troll,,,, I give up on you

bye bye.... :)

> You seem to be starting to contradict yourself! How would you reconcile
> this
> with your other posts listed below.

There are NO contradictions.

> What I see is:
> 1) We can't fight the government 'cause we don't have equal firepower

I'm just answering to their inner 'fear' and paranoia (which it really
is),,,, I don't think it is at all likely. Besides, all the government
(foreign or otherwise) would have to do to KNOW who has the arms (REGARDLESS
if the firearm is unregistered) is to access the N.R.A. member list - then
OFF they go, against them, complete with home addresses to go to.

>> 3) You're worried that the government is getting out of control.

But, I'm not worried that they are going to take us over though - really,
that is truly paranoid thinking. Although the Patriot Act has to be
dismantled and is a threat to our most basic rights - that's where our
'fight' lies... not in a 'para-military' movement - rather through
thoughtful legislation and examination of such.

--
--
=-----
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 -

> You need to get a clue.

Naw,,, you just require a specialist to speak with regarding your paranoid
thoughts.

Get better soon!

--
--
=-----
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 -
"Richard Hertz" <no one@no one.com> wrote in message
. net...

I have been trying to have a discussion with you, and you have been trying
to prove that you are an asshole. You have succeeded.

Goodbye...


"Cecil Chapman" > wrote in message
m...
> >
> > I guess "off she went" is appropriate. She slid off a road and hit the
end
> > of a concrete bridge. Yea, she left me, and a lot of other people who
> > loved
> > her.
> >
> > Asshole.
>
> Not likely, but a clever technique to use to turn the gist of a story,,,
> almost believed you! Good try, though!
>
> >> And Willie Brown dropped by your house how often? Just because you had
a
> > black mayor doesn't mean you actually saw a black person. Or that your
> > conversation went beyond: "I'll have a Big Mac
>
> You've NEVER been to the city for any appreciable time then or you would
> know the demographics of our area - pretty racially mixed - check it out
on
> the U.S. census site.
>
>
> > > And you didn't mention when your wife's coworker attended college. If
it
> > > was
> > 1955 I wouldn't find it surprising. But the next door neighbor of one of
> > my
> > third cousin's best friends said it didn't happen anyway.
>
> Nope,,, less than 11 years ago, she was working on a Masters degree.
>
>
> >
> > And one funny: around the time that "gay" was beginning to "kick in", I
> > was
> > having a drink with a homosexual friend of mine.
>
> YOU have a gay friend,,,,, <snicker> as if THAT would be very likely!
>
>
> > Child molesters were not part of my discussion, as that has nothing to
do
> > with homosexuality.
>
> You just had said, to leave our nine year old in the castro - your
> presumption was that someone there would take advantage of him and that,
as
> far as I understand, would qualify as child molestation.
>
> >
> > Research indicated that the molestation itself does not lead to
> > any mental health problems for the children.
>
> Yep, right up there on the 'good ol' boy' list, that women really 'enjoy'
> being raped. < just shaking my head at you>
> You're either just plain hopeless or you are a troll,,,, I give up on you
>
> bye bye.... :)
>
>

"C J Campbell" wrote:
> so many others on these forums appear to genuinely believe that anyone who
has
> religious beliefs should at least be disenfranchised, if not eliminated
> altogether.

bs

> The advocacy of genocide is a modern liberal trait,

bs

> but the liberal reasons that if he thinks genocide is a viable option,
then his
> conservative opponents must, too.

bs

> If liberals think that religion must be
> exterminated, who can blame them for believing that their opponents think
> like they do?

bs

Welcome back, Chris! Where ya been?
--
Dan

"There should be limits to freedom"
- George W. Bush

The word "regulated" was used at the time of the writing of the Bill of
Rights to mean "trained".

The militia was all the male citizens.

"AES/newspost" > wrote in message
...
> 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?

"Cecil Chapman" > wrote in message
m...
>> You need to get a clue.
>
> Naw,,, you just require a specialist to speak with regarding your paranoid
> thoughts.
>

And what paranoid thoughts were those? I can't see anything in my posts
that qualifies as paranoia. You choose to project some mistaken beliefs in
my reasons for owning firearms.

Time and again we see that people with firearms have saved lives and stopped
more criminals from hurting innocent people. Unfortunately the media in the
US chooses to ignore those parts of the reports. For example, if there had
been an armed teacher in the Columbine school or a person on the train with
Colin Ferguson who knew something about handguns then there would be fewer
dead innocents. Unfortunately idiot 'liberals' (a contradition of the use
of the term, as libere means freedom) choose to disarm the law abiding
public, ensuring that ciminals have an easy time of it.

> Get better soon!

And to you, I say, "Wake up soon."

>
> --
> --
> =-----
> 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 -
> "Richard Hertz" <no one@no one.com> wrote in message
> . net...
>

"Gig Giacona" > wrote in message
...
> The word "regulated" was used at the time of the writing of the Bill of
> Rights to mean "trained".
>
> The militia was all the male citizens.

At the time it meant "efficient" and/or "accurate"

It derived from "regular", as in regularity...as in frequent bowel
movements...


Matt
---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO

"Richard Hertz" <no one@no one.com> wrote in message
. net...
>
> "Cecil Chapman" > wrote in message
> m...
> >> You need to get a clue.
> >
> > Naw,,, you just require a specialist to speak with regarding your
paranoid
> > thoughts.
> >
>
> And what paranoid thoughts were those? I can't see anything in my posts
> that qualifies as paranoia. You choose to project some mistaken beliefs
in
> my reasons for owning firearms.

http://www.heretical.com/sexsci/bpsychol.html

1. Neurosis
The definition of neurosis in this system is taken from Pavlov: it is the
stress induced when a single stimulus evokes two or more responses.

Neurosis will be better understood if we examine its probable origin. Then
two primal neuroses have been defined: the Fundamental Human Neurosis and
the Fundamental Female Neurosis.

The Fundamental Human Neurosis derives from the knowledge of impending
death. Every organism strives to survive: even a humble fly avoids death
because any creature which does not partake in "the eternal struggle for
life" fails to pass on its genes, loses its competition with others and its
characters disappear forever from the gene pool. Thus any creature which
does not so partake has long become extinct. Similarly, humans do not
generally contemplate death with happy expectation. This conflict, that we
do not wish to die, while at the same time being conscious of its
inevitability, is the Fundamental Human Neurosis. It accounts for the
evolution of religion, which resolves it.

The origin of the Fundamental Female Neurosis is (predictably, since females
are much more sexual than males) sex. The female, at least occasionally,
wants sex, yet her basic evolution strategy relies on raising its value.
(Recall that in this system sex is any non-monetary activity: any
non-business relationship is sex, and 'sex,' 'physical sex' and
'relationships' are all equivalent since their only ultimate purpose is
procreation.) Physical sex is the only amenity which females can provide
which males cannot: hence all female procedures reduce to raising the value,
i.e. the costs, of sex. Even though the female may desire sex, she denies it
to the male to make it into a scarce resource. Thus its value is raised and
her status increases.





2a. Freudian Projection
The following is a collection of definitions of projection from orthodox
psychology texts. In this system the distinct mechanism of projecting own
unconscious or undesirable characteristics onto an opponent is called
Freudian Projection.

a.. "A defense mechanism in which the individual attributes to other
people impulses and traits that he himself has but cannot accept. It is
especially likely to occur when the person lacks insight into his own
impulses and traits."


b.. "The externalisation of internal unconscious wishes, desires or
emotions on to other people. So, for example, someone who feels
subconsciously that they have a powerful latent homosexual drive may not
acknowledge this consciously, but it may show in their readiness to suspect
others of being homosexual."


c.. "Attributing one's own undesirabe traits to other people or agencies,
e.g., an aggressive man accuses other people of being hostile."


d.. "The individual perceives in others the motive he denies having
himself. Thus the cheat is sure that everyone else is dishonest. The
would-be adulterer accuses his wife of infidelity."


e.. "People attribute their own undesirable traits onto others. An
individual who unconsciously recognises his or her aggressive tendencies may
then see other people acting in an excessively aggressive way."


f.. "Projection is the opposite defence mechanism to identification. We
project our own unpleasant feelings onto someone else and blame them for
having thoughts that we really have."
2b. (General) Projection
Here projection is assuming that others act or perceive similarly -
according to this definition it is not necessary for a projected trait to be
undesirable or unconscious. Projection is probably inherent in social
animals and the single most important psychological mechanism. The following
are given as examples:

1.. Individual A assumes that B sees the colour red as he does, until
informed that B is colour-blind;


2.. Someone who never lies is easy to deceive because he projects his
truthfulness onto others, assuming that others are honest also;


3.. ‘It takes one to know one’;


4.. An inept con-man fears that others are trying to cheat him, signals
his fear and alerts others;


5.. (Freudian) An individual who possesses malicious characteristics, but
who is unwilling to perceive himself as a protagonist, convinces himself
that his opponent feels and would act the same way.
Each of these examples involves an assumption that others exhibit an own
trait, but various "defence mechanisms" exist. Counter-strategies for Case 2
include (a) being conscious of a tendency to project and compensating with
increased scepticism, testing scientifically, and (b) lying as much as
everyone else. Case 3 could occur if an individual is honest about own
characteristics and inhibits his tendency to project, in which case he may
accurately recognize his own traits in another without error. Case 4 is an
interesting scenario left open for discussion.

In Case 5, offensive acts may occur when the projector (which may be an
individual or a group), erroneously believing that their adversary is about
to likewise, pre-empts the opponent - making the player of this so-called
defence mechanism into a protagonist. This illustrates just one of several
problems with the orthodox notion of projection. I hope to have demonstrated
that the conventional definition of projection, here dubbed Freudian
Projection, merely describes a specific instance of a more general, and
important, human mechanism. Projection, combined with features such as
denial of latent desires, accounts for a great deal of human behaviour and
attitudes.

"Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Richard Hertz" <no one@no one.com> wrote in message
> . net...
>>
>> "Cecil Chapman" > wrote in message
>> m...
>> >> You need to get a clue.
>> >
>> > Naw,,, you just require a specialist to speak with regarding your
> paranoid
>> > thoughts.
>> >
>>
>> And what paranoid thoughts were those? I can't see anything in my posts
>> that qualifies as paranoia. You choose to project some mistaken beliefs
> in
>> my reasons for owning firearms.
>
> http://www.heretical.com/sexsci/bpsychol.html



WTF is this all about?
or as the canadans say, "aboot?"



>
> 1. Neurosis
> The definition of neurosis in this system is taken from Pavlov: it is the
> stress induced when a single stimulus evokes two or more responses.
>
> Neurosis will be better understood if we examine its probable origin. Then
> two primal neuroses have been defined: the Fundamental Human Neurosis and
> the Fundamental Female Neurosis.
>
> The Fundamental Human Neurosis derives from the knowledge of impending
> death. Every organism strives to survive: even a humble fly avoids death
> because any creature which does not partake in "the eternal struggle for
> life" fails to pass on its genes, loses its competition with others and
> its
> characters disappear forever from the gene pool. Thus any creature which
> does not so partake has long become extinct. Similarly, humans do not
> generally contemplate death with happy expectation. This conflict, that we
> do not wish to die, while at the same time being conscious of its
> inevitability, is the Fundamental Human Neurosis. It accounts for the
> evolution of religion, which resolves it.
>
> The origin of the Fundamental Female Neurosis is (predictably, since
> females
> are much more sexual than males) sex. The female, at least occasionally,
> wants sex, yet her basic evolution strategy relies on raising its value.
> (Recall that in this system sex is any non-monetary activity: any
> non-business relationship is sex, and 'sex,' 'physical sex' and
> 'relationships' are all equivalent since their only ultimate purpose is
> procreation.) Physical sex is the only amenity which females can provide
> which males cannot: hence all female procedures reduce to raising the
> value,
> i.e. the costs, of sex. Even though the female may desire sex, she denies
> it
> to the male to make it into a scarce resource. Thus its value is raised
> and
> her status increases.
>
>
>
>
>
> 2a. Freudian Projection
> The following is a collection of definitions of projection from orthodox
> psychology texts. In this system the distinct mechanism of projecting own
> unconscious or undesirable characteristics onto an opponent is called
> Freudian Projection.
>
> a.. "A defense mechanism in which the individual attributes to other
> people impulses and traits that he himself has but cannot accept. It is
> especially likely to occur when the person lacks insight into his own
> impulses and traits."
>
>
> b.. "The externalisation of internal unconscious wishes, desires or
> emotions on to other people. So, for example, someone who feels
> subconsciously that they have a powerful latent homosexual drive may not
> acknowledge this consciously, but it may show in their readiness to
> suspect
> others of being homosexual."
>
>
> c.. "Attributing one's own undesirabe traits to other people or agencies,
> e.g., an aggressive man accuses other people of being hostile."
>
>
> d.. "The individual perceives in others the motive he denies having
> himself. Thus the cheat is sure that everyone else is dishonest. The
> would-be adulterer accuses his wife of infidelity."
>
>
> e.. "People attribute their own undesirable traits onto others. An
> individual who unconsciously recognises his or her aggressive tendencies
> may
> then see other people acting in an excessively aggressive way."
>
>
> f.. "Projection is the opposite defence mechanism to identification. We
> project our own unpleasant feelings onto someone else and blame them for
> having thoughts that we really have."
> 2b. (General) Projection
> Here projection is assuming that others act or perceive similarly -
> according to this definition it is not necessary for a projected trait to
> be
> undesirable or unconscious. Projection is probably inherent in social
> animals and the single most important psychological mechanism. The
> following
> are given as examples:
>
> 1.. Individual A assumes that B sees the colour red as he does, until
> informed that B is colour-blind;
>
>
> 2.. Someone who never lies is easy to deceive because he projects his
> truthfulness onto others, assuming that others are honest also;
>
>
> 3.. 'It takes one to know one';
>
>
> 4.. An inept con-man fears that others are trying to cheat him, signals
> his fear and alerts others;
>
>
> 5.. (Freudian) An individual who possesses malicious characteristics, but
> who is unwilling to perceive himself as a protagonist, convinces himself
> that his opponent feels and would act the same way.
> Each of these examples involves an assumption that others exhibit an own
> trait, but various "defence mechanisms" exist. Counter-strategies for Case
> 2
> include (a) being conscious of a tendency to project and compensating with
> increased scepticism, testing scientifically, and (b) lying as much as
> everyone else. Case 3 could occur if an individual is honest about own
> characteristics and inhibits his tendency to project, in which case he may
> accurately recognize his own traits in another without error. Case 4 is an
> interesting scenario left open for discussion.
>
> In Case 5, offensive acts may occur when the projector (which may be an
> individual or a group), erroneously believing that their adversary is
> about
> to likewise, pre-empts the opponent - making the player of this so-called
> defence mechanism into a protagonist. This illustrates just one of several
> problems with the orthodox notion of projection. I hope to have
> demonstrated
> that the conventional definition of projection, here dubbed Freudian
> Projection, merely describes a specific instance of a more general, and
> important, human mechanism. Projection, combined with features such as
> denial of latent desires, accounts for a great deal of human behaviour and
> attitudes.
>
>
>

Dang, was Clinton re-elected?


"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
>
>

Or as in a well regulated clock, meaning operating well and efficiently.

Matt Barrow wrote:
> "Gig Giacona" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>The word "regulated" was used at the time of the writing of the Bill of
>>Rights to mean "trained".
>>
>>The militia was all the male citizens.
>
>
> At the time it meant "efficient" and/or "accurate"
>
> It derived from "regular", as in regularity...as in frequent bowel
> movements...
>
>
> Matt
> ---------------------
> Matthew W. Barrow
> Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
> Montrose, CO
>
>
>

On Mon, 08 Nov 2004 01:48:42 GMT, Jose >
wrote:

>> and there is the problem - can you really estimate or bound the error
>> from all the error sources (e.g., people not participating or
>> deliberately lying to the poll)?
>
>Yes.
>
>You cannot "bound" the error in an absolute sense, except to say that it's no bigger than the total population, which is useless. However, if a poll is done right, you can estimate the likely error. For example, "95% of the time, the error will be


Ahhhh... How about setting your line wrap to about 70 characters?

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

On Sun, 7 Nov 2004 23:14:02 -0800, "C J Campbell"
> 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. 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.
>
>It is too bad that Mr. Brooks took seriously what was an obvious parody. I
>would never seriously advocate extermination of Democrats.

If the gain of the religious fundamentalists in the Republican party
continues at its present pace, they'll be extinct in 10 years anyway,
or about as potent as a neutered tom cat. <:-)) They are definitely
going to have to change their approach so they are not identified with
rich society.



Roger (some of my best friends are religious) Halstead (K8RI & ARRL
life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com
>

"Rip" > wrote in message
. com...
> Or as in a well regulated clock, meaning operating well and efficiently.

You left out accuracy which as the railroads found out was pretty important.

"Roger" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 7 Nov 2004 23:14:02 -0800, "C J Campbell"
> > 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. 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.
> >
> >It is too bad that Mr. Brooks took seriously what was an obvious parody.
I
> >would never seriously advocate extermination of Democrats.
>
> If the gain of the religious fundamentalists in the Republican party
> continues at its present pace, they'll be extinct in 10 years anyway,
> or about as potent as a neutered tom cat. <:-)) They are definitely
> going to have to change their approach so they are not identified with
> rich society.

I think this claim that the "religious fundamentalists" control the agenda
of the Republican Party is about as big a canard as claiming that the
Chinese Communists control the Democrats.

> Ahhhh... How about setting your line wrap to about 70 characters?

Well, that's double edged. Wide line wrap (200 char or so) lets newsreaders that autowrap text do their thing gracefully while preventing buffer overruns, but are a pain for those that don't. Line wrapping at (say) 70 defeats autowrap, but ensures
that older newsreaders (I'd presume very old) handle the post gracefully (unless it's quoted too much).

What's a poster to do?

Jose
(note - I don't follow r.a.student)
--
Freedom. It seemed like a good idea at the time.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

I've really tried to ignore this one, but the more I read it, the more it
offends me...

So, my $0.02 worth is woven throughout...


"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.

Guess what David,

One of the things I've learned in 43 years of living is that politics don't
really fit anywhere. Whether because of family history, social
consciousness, personal success or failure, a love of donkeys or elephants
and a bazillion other possible reasons, one's political persuation is as
personal and deepley rooted as just about anything can possibly be. I'd bet
that if you asked 100 citizens of the USA why they belong to one political
party or another, almost none of them could give you calm, rational,
coherent answers that don't digress into a litany of what's wrong with this
country becuase of the "other guys."

> Most of my flight instructors have, I know, been to the right of me
> politically.

That's about as consequential as the fact that they were physically in the
right seat. How the heck would you "know" this anyway? Did they volunteer
this information, or are you the type who insists on digging and pushing
enough buttons until you get the response that officially confirms (in your
mind...) that they MUST be right-wing, reactionary, biggoted,
hate-mongering, gun-toting, neandertal, knuckle dragging, Bible Beaters who
want to bring back witch burning, public stonings and prohibition because
they don't see things quite the same way you do? Take your own lesson
learned to heart ... If you don't want to know someone's personal philosophy
on a subject ... don't ask.

> 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.

Don't know where this comes from...and don't care, either.

> 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.

Oooh, I feel like such a subversive, because on the Bush Administrations
watch:
A) I realized a lifelong dream this year in earning my PP-ASEL (due in no
small measure to point (B))
B) I'm self employed, but I've been able to secure plenty of work in my
chosen profession (Sports TV - averaging 40 to 45 weekends of work a
year...)
C) My wife landed her dream job which increased both her earnings and her
job-satistfaction quotient, signficantly
D) Between 2000 and now...we travelled to lots of fun places and met lots of
interesting people

And according to you, we were able to do all this in a neo-fascist,
jackboot-clad, burn 'em out of the ghettos and get 'em on the rail cars,
police state??!!??

I'll be go to hell... Who could ever have guessed that totalitarianism could
yield such personal, professional and financial rewards? I guess the UUSSA
(United Union of Soviet States of America) is a workers paradise after all!!

> 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.

There is no such thing as an "apolitical setting." Simple math dictates
that once you have more than two people, the ability to form a majority
exsists. Right / Left ... Republican / Democrat ... High Wing / Low Wing
.... King Schools / Sportys ... National League / American League ... Boxers
/ Briefs ... Cessna / Piper. It's human nature to form opinions, take sides
and debate. Remebmer where you are...Usenet. If there is a more democratic
and egalitarian environment than Usenet, I sure don't know where that would
be.

Face it, the Democratic party ran a poorly focused, haphazard campaign that
just sounded more and more desperate as we got closer to election day.
While I do think that the US's position in the world obligates us to use our
political / military / financial resources if there is a situation where one
or all of our strengths could provide help or assistance to those in need, I
don't agree with our current policy on Iraq. I feel the first Gulf War
proved just what a sham and a paper tiger Saddam Hussein and his military
really are. We could have just kept him bottled up in Iraq ad-infinitum and
concentrated our efforts in Afghanistan, instead.

I considered voting for Mr. Kerry, but he stepped on the same land mine that
seems to blow up in the face of at least one politician every election: He
started to promise too much, to too many in too scatter-shot a fashion
without enough specifics and/or details to back up his claims. It's very
easy to stand on the sidelines and cry foul. Had he offered anything in the
way of alternatives that could be enacted in in a realistic manner he'd have
gotten my vote. But, increasingly, he just became a broken record and his
rants against the current administration just became an endless loop of the
same lines, over and over and over...Ok, Senator ... we get it ... Bush Bad
.... but, why would you be better? <Insert Chirping Crickets Here>

Finally, I reject and personally resent your assertion that Republicans are
cowards, murderers, hypocrites and thugs. My father is a Republican and
standing up for what he believes got him a trip to Italy and a Purple Heart.
His father was a Republican and was a decorated member of the Detroit Police
Department. And now, I'm a Republican who by luck and the grace of "God"
(yup, the same "God" mentioned on our money, in our pledge of allegience and
in no less than four specific places in the Declaration of Independence...)
was born in a time between major conflicts but in a society that still
rewards those who are willing to get off their ass and go work for what
makes them happy.

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

All I can say is I'm glad I'm not in the dark place you are.

Jay Beckman
Chandler, AZ
PP-ASEL

"Richard Russell" > wrote in message
...
> >
> 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 think Jean Kirkpatrick could have been elected, possibly in a landslide.
Her "Blame America First" speech created a lot of support for her.

"Bob Chilcoat" > wrote in message
...
> 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.

Funny, that is what I was thinking about Kerry toward the end of the
election. His continual wild accusations made me begin to wonder about his
mental stability. "Bush has a secret plan for a draft!" "Bush is responsible
for the loss of the WMD that Saddam never had anyway!" "Bush is going to
destroy Social Security, date your girl friend, and drive your car around
when you are not looking!" Seriously, it was getting difficult to tell
whether Kerry was talking about Bush or the Good Times virus. :-)

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
> "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.

Neither is it disputable that towards the end of the campaign that Kerry was
getting close to batting zero on getting his own facts straight. Bush's
secret plan for a draft? The "lost" explosives? The destruction of Social
Security? The flu virus conspiracy? I had to wonder what Kerry was smoking.

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
> "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.

It would have been interesting if the Gallup poll would have asked Kerry's
supporters whether Bush really had a secret plan to introduce the draft, or
whether Bush lost those explosives, or whether Bush had a secret plan to get
rid of Social Security, or whether Bush was behind a secret conspiracy to
create a flu vaccine shortage.

The Gallup poll only addressed Republican myths. If it had asked about
Democratic myths it might perhaps have been considerably more balanced in
its result.

"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.

Kerry's testimony before the Fulbright committee and his meetings with
Communist leaders during a time of war sound pretty far left to me.

>
> 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),

Bush volunteered for duty, too, and was subject to being sent to SEA. Unlike
Kerry, he did not incite the enemy to abuse prisoners of war, commit war
crimes, or make false claims that everyone else in SEA was committing war
crimes.

> 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.

Nevertheless, Bush managed to remember who was President when Kerry was SEA,
which Kerry did not. He also managed to remember where he was, while Kerry
imagines he was in Cambodia.

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.

Oh, please. Making false claims that people were stringing ears together
into necklaces is not political bile?

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?
>

Apparently it means nothing 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.

You apparently swallowed Kerry's bilge hook, line and sinker without doing
much fact checking.

>
> 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.

Saddam had attacked us numerous times -- shooting at UN aircraft patrolling
the no-fly zone, paying bounties to terrorists who killed Americans, etc.

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....

There is no OIL in Afghanistan, either, nor does America import OIL from
Iraq. If Iraq is about OIL, where is the OIL?

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.

While I disagree with Bush's stance on stem cell research, I also disagree
with Kerry on partial birth abortion.

>
> 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.
>

And in fact Kerry was not the best person for the job. He was quite possibly
the worst.

> 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..........
>

I would genuinely like to see you start to use yours, if you have any left
after giving so many pieces of it away. :-)

"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.

That is really funny coming from a Democrat. Here we have Democrats accusing
Bush of behaving too much like a Democrat. ROFL.

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
> "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?

What percentage of Kerry voters still believe that Bush has a secret plan
for the draft? Oh, wait. I guess Gallup did not want to ask questions that
would make Democrats uncomfortable.

"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.

Bush does not support ownership of AK-47s, either. Allowing the so-called
"assault weapons" ban to expire had nothing to do with AK-47s or any other
real assault weapon.

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'

What he actually said was that although he was against it, he would support
local actions to institute it or to create it substantively through civil
unions. Typical Kerry -- taking both sides of the position at once.

This is not just a religious issue, no matter how hard you try to paint it
that way. It has serious economic and social ramifications.

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...
> It would have been interesting if the Gallup poll would have asked Kerry's
> supporters whether Bush really had a secret plan to introduce the draft,
> or
> whether Bush lost those explosives, or whether Bush had a secret plan to
> get
> rid of Social Security, or whether Bush was behind a secret conspiracy to
> create a flu vaccine shortage.

Absolutely, it would have been interesting. Some of your examples are
extreme, and I doubt significant numbers would have affirmed those examples.
But surely it would have turned up a similar lack of knowledge of the actual
facts.

> The Gallup poll only addressed Republican myths. If it had asked about
> Democratic myths it might perhaps have been considerably more balanced in
> its result.

I guess that depends on what information you're interested. But none of
your alternative examples seem nearly as important as the question of
whether a sitting President lied about what he knew, in order to win
approval for a war that wound up miring us in a huge stinking pile of doo,
and then continued to lie about what he said straight through the election.

My main point was simply that the electorate in general believes what they
want to believe, regardless of what the actual truth is. This is true of
all people, regardless of party affiliation. My secondary, much less
important point (especially now that the election is over), might be that I
personally feel that lying to the public in order to justify a deadly war is
a much bigger transgression than has been witnessed in the Executive branch
since the Iran-Contra scandal.

Pete

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...
> What percentage of Kerry voters still believe that Bush has a secret plan
> for the draft?

Welcome back CJ. You are just as unable to comprehend a point as ever.

"Richard Hertz" <no one@no one.com> wrote in message
. net...
>
> "Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Richard Hertz" <no one@no one.com> wrote in message
> > . net...
> >>
> >> "Cecil Chapman" > wrote in message
> >> m...
> >> >> You need to get a clue.
> >> >
> >> > Naw,,, you just require a specialist to speak with regarding your
> > paranoid
> >> > thoughts.
> >> >
> >>
> >> And what paranoid thoughts were those? I can't see anything in my
posts
> >> that qualifies as paranoia. You choose to project some mistaken
beliefs
> > in
> >> my reasons for owning firearms.
> >
> > http://www.heretical.com/sexsci/bpsychol.html
>
>
>
> WTF is this all about?
> or as the canadans say, "aboot?"
>

Ummm...about psychology?

"Dave Stadt" > wrote in message
m...
>
> "Rip" > wrote in message
> . com...
> > Or as in a well regulated clock, meaning operating well and efficiently.
>
> You left out accuracy which as the railroads found out was pretty
important.

And the navies of the world.

(see 'Longitude', by Dava Sobel, thestory of John Harrison, the man who
invented the chronograph)


--
Matt
---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Cecil Chapman" > wrote in message
> m...
> > 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, by his own admission, volunteered for the Navy RESERVE...SPECIFICALLY
to avoid duty in SEA.

>
> Bush volunteered for duty, too, and was subject to being sent to SEA.

He also volunteered for rather hazardous duty...duty that was patently
hazardous even if he never left Texas, much less tha US. He also volunteered
for duty in VietNam, but was turned down.

In the same vien, Kerry was sent to the Swift Boats, not voluntarily, but
becasue he was a pain in ths ass "Sea Lawyer" (the Navy equivalent of a
civilian "****house lawyer") and his commander wated his off his ship.


> Unlike
> Kerry, he did not incite the enemy to abuse prisoners of war, commit war
> crimes, or make false claims that everyone else in SEA was committing war
> crimes.

And that says a lot, even aside from his overt acts of treason. That is why
there are still serious question that his first discharge was "less than
honorable". Of course, his massively hypocritical hiding his record (why?)
can only fuel the question.


--
Matt
---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...
>
> "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.
>
> That is really funny coming from a Democrat. Here we have Democrats
accusing
> Bush of behaving too much like a Democrat. ROFL.

And using 2nd grade explanations of history.

Yeah, democrats are so SAVVY....for nine year olds.


--
Matt
---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
> ...
> > "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?

Indirectly, he was.

How many of the looney left still can't comprehend that we're engaged in a
war on TERRORIDM, not just on the participants of 9/11?

Christ, we couldn't trust the left to run a lemonade stand, much less some
serious business.

>
> What percentage of Kerry voters still believe that Bush has a secret plan
> for the draft? Oh, wait. I guess Gallup did not want to ask questions that
> would make Democrats uncomfortable.

How many still buy the notion that the peace and prosperity of the 90's was
Bubba's doing?

(Think: Reagan doctrine, and Y2K run-up)

"Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Richard Hertz" <no one@no one.com> wrote in message
> . net...
>>
>> "Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >
>> > "Richard Hertz" <no one@no one.com> wrote in message
>> > . net...
>> >>
>> >> "Cecil Chapman" > wrote in message
>> >> m...
>> >> >> You need to get a clue.
>> >> >
>> >> > Naw,,, you just require a specialist to speak with regarding your
>> > paranoid
>> >> > thoughts.
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> And what paranoid thoughts were those? I can't see anything in my
> posts
>> >> that qualifies as paranoia. You choose to project some mistaken
> beliefs
>> > in
>> >> my reasons for owning firearms.
>> >
>> > http://www.heretical.com/sexsci/bpsychol.html
>>
>>
>>
>> WTF is this all about?
>> or as the canadans say, "aboot?"
>>
>
> Ummm...about psychology?

And why was it posted?

I asked for a reason why Cecil called me paranoid and you posted a book.

>
>

"Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
...
>> > Which Bush voters? The 64% that still believe that Saddam Hussein was
>> > involved in the 9/11 attacks?
>
> Indirectly, he was.

Indirectly, YOU are.

But we're not talking about "indirect involvement" here.

> How many of the looney left still can't comprehend that we're engaged in a
> war on TERRORIDM, not just on the participants of 9/11?

"TERRORIDM"? Uh, okay. If you say so. And yet, that still doesn't explain
what we're doing in Iraq, there having been no proven connection between
terrorism and Iraq.

Pete

Peter Duniho wrote:

> what we're doing in Iraq, there having been no proven connection between
> terrorism and Iraq.

Yes, there is. I'd surely call disregarding international law, attacking
and invading a country without a reason and killing thousands of
innocent civilians terrorism. No, wait, there's something wrong here...

Stefan

"Stefan" > wrote in message
...
>> what we're doing in Iraq, there having been no proven connection between
>> terrorism and Iraq.
>
> Yes, there is. I'd surely call disregarding international law, attacking
> and invading a country without a reason and killing thousands of innocent
> civilians terrorism.

Yeah, sorry...I should have been more specific. "No proven connection prior
to our invasion of Iraq between terrorism by Islamic radicals and Iraq".

> No, wait, there's something wrong here...

Yes, there is. :)

Frank wrote:
[...deletia...]
> The biggest difference I see today is in attitude. "Reds" seem to have one
> of "I've got mine, you get yours" while the "blues" is more like "We have
> so much, we should try to make life better for the less fortunate".


Actually, the Blues I've seen seem to say "You have so much, give me some!"

On Mon, 8 Nov 2004 20:53:13 -0800, "C J Campbell"
> wrote:

>
>"Roger" > wrote in message
...
>> On Sun, 7 Nov 2004 23:14:02 -0800, "C J Campbell"
>> > 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. 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.
>> >
>> >It is too bad that Mr. Brooks took seriously what was an obvious parody.
>I
>> >would never seriously advocate extermination of Democrats.
>>
>> If the gain of the religious fundamentalists in the Republican party
>> continues at its present pace, they'll be extinct in 10 years anyway,
>> or about as potent as a neutered tom cat. <:-)) They are definitely
>> going to have to change their approach so they are not identified with
>> rich society.
>
>I think this claim that the "religious fundamentalists" control the agenda
>of the Republican Party is about as big a canard as claiming that the
>Chinese Communists control the Democrats.
>
I'm not so sure. According to the news the other night that element
was a major voting block for Bush. How much control they have over
the party platform, I don't know, but they are a force with which to
recon and they are growing all the time.

The two things the article pointed out was they are growing rapidly
and *currently* are Republican.

I think possibly Kathleen Parker (Orlando Sentinel) may have written a
column on it as well.

Roger

"Stefan" > wrote in message
...
> Peter Duniho wrote:
>
> > what we're doing in Iraq, there having been no proven connection between
> > terrorism and Iraq.
>
> Yes, there is. I'd surely call disregarding international law, attacking
> and invading a country without a reason and killing thousands of
> innocent civilians terrorism. No, wait, there's something wrong here...
>

Yes...it's call intent and deliberation.

No wonder the rest of the world is so full of ****.

"Richard Hertz" <no one@no one.com> wrote in message
. net...
>
> "Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> >> And what paranoid thoughts were those? I can't see anything in my
> > posts
> >> >> that qualifies as paranoia. You choose to project some mistaken
> > beliefs
> >> > in
> >> >> my reasons for owning firearms.
> >> >
> >> > http://www.heretical.com/sexsci/bpsychol.html
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> WTF is this all about?
> >> or as the canadans say, "aboot?"
> >>
> >
> > Ummm...about psychology?
>
> And why was it posted?

Let's see: we're talking the psychology of gun owners and anti-gunners...

>
> I asked for a reason why Cecil called me paranoid and you posted a book.

Well, why don't you see if there is something on TV that can define the
issue in terms your limited attention span can comprehend.

BTW, it seems the "book" (which you DIDN'T HAVE TO READ) hit a sore spot
with you. Did you see yourself defined?

"Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Richard Hertz" <no one@no one.com> wrote in message
> . net...
>>
>> "Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >> >> And what paranoid thoughts were those? I can't see anything in my
>> > posts
>> >> >> that qualifies as paranoia. You choose to project some mistaken
>> > beliefs
>> >> > in
>> >> >> my reasons for owning firearms.
>> >> >
>> >> > http://www.heretical.com/sexsci/bpsychol.html
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> WTF is this all about?
>> >> or as the canadans say, "aboot?"
>> >>
>> >
>> > Ummm...about psychology?
>>
>> And why was it posted?
>
> Let's see: we're talking the psychology of gun owners and anti-gunners...

I was accused of being paranoid and asked for a reason why Cecil thought so.
You posted a copy of a web page.

>
>>
>> I asked for a reason why Cecil called me paranoid and you posted a book.
>
> Well, why don't you see if there is something on TV that can define the
> issue in terms your limited attention span can comprehend.

I watch about 2 hours per month, nice try though. I was expecting to see a
post that was relevant to what I had asked, not some regurgitation of
something that had no bearing on my post, though I did see that projection
was mentioned and i can only attribute that to Cecil and his ideas about gun
owners.
>
> BTW, it seems the "book" (which you DIDN'T HAVE TO READ) hit a sore spot
> with you. Did you see yourself defined?

No sore spot, just wondering why it was presented. I asked about paranoia
and was responded to with Freudian nonsense. I also see no neurosis in my
behavior, though will admit that you may not think I can be objective on
this point. Owning firearms and stating so does not make one paranoid or
neurotic, in spite of what the gun control crowd will have people believe.


>
>
>
>
>
>
>

"Roger" > wrote in message
...
> I'm not so sure. According to the news the other night that element
> was a major voting block for Bush. How much control they have over
> the party platform, I don't know, but they are a force with which to
> recon and they are growing all the time.

Technically, they have no control. But honestly, why would a party that
claims to be "conservative" (it was the Radical Republicans that argued for
ending slavery, for crying out loud..."conservativism" in its purest form,
IMHO) all of the sudden swing around and start wanting to restrict
individual's behavior?

The Republican Party is strongly against legalizing gay marriage and
abortion, is strongly in favor of prayer and religious references in schools
and government (but only Christian prayer and references, naturally), and
there's even a pretty good movement that's been going for the last couple of
decades to teach the book of Genesis in science classes.

For a party that claims to be "conservative", they have swung about as far
way out the other direction as is possible, on several issues, all of which
directly related to personal liberties. Of course, they are still in favor
of businesses being able to do whatever they want.

Basically, the Republican Party is only "conservative" when there's money in
it for them and their own. Otherwise, they've been whoring themselves out
to the Bible Belt for a long while already.

The correlation between the Republican Party's faith-based lawmaking and
Christian evangelical and fundamentalist groups is well-documented. Anyone
who thinks it's just some old canard has their head in the sand.

Pete

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
> "Stefan" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> what we're doing in Iraq, there having been no proven connection
between
> >> terrorism and Iraq.
> >
> > Yes, there is. I'd surely call disregarding international law, attacking
> > and invading a country without a reason and killing thousands of
innocent
> > civilians terrorism.
>
> Yeah, sorry...I should have been more specific. "No proven connection
prior
> to our invasion of Iraq between terrorism by Islamic radicals and Iraq".
>

Well yes, actually, there was a proven connection even during Clinton's
time. Saddam regularly paid bounties to the families of suicide bombers for
Hamas and offered rewards for anyone who would kill Americans.

If you get right down to it, the only arguments against murder or theft are
basically religious.

C J Campbell wrote:

> If you get right down to it, the only arguments against murder or theft are
> basically religious.

No. Moral, yes, but religious, no. This is not the same thing at all.

Stefan

Matt Barrow wrote:

> Yes...it's call intent and deliberation.

Guess what? Most victims don't care. And even those who do don't usually
think that the desire of making money with their oil is a valid reason
to kill them.

> No wonder the rest of the world is so full of ****.

Then why the desire to invade it? But what do I expect from a country
which has been built on a genozide.

Stefan

> Then why the desire to invade it? But what do I expect from a country
> which has been built on a genozide.

???

Which country was built on "genozide"?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

> Actually, the Blues I've seen seem to say "You have so much, give me
> some!"

You've put your finger on the reason the Democrats fail.

The "Blues" that believe in *taking* far outnumber the "Blues" that believe
in "We have so much, we should try to make life better for the less
fortunate".

Worse, the ones who seem to believe the latter are too often disingenuous,
oftentimes benefiting from taking advantage of the one who believe the
former.

Government employees -- who overwhelmingly vote Democrat -- fit into this
realm.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

>> If you get right down to it, the only arguments against murder or theft
>> are
>> basically religious.
>
> No. Moral, yes, but religious, no. This is not the same thing at all.

I'm with Stefan on this one (*gasp!*) -- there are plenty of moral and
logical arguments against murder or theft that don't involve religion.

I, for one, don't practice any organized religion -- but I've taught my
children morals that quite closely parallel the Ten Commandments.

Morality and religion often run on parallel tracks, but are, in fact, quite
different.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...
> If you get right down to it, the only arguments against murder or theft
are
> basically religious.

And the Greeks, Romans, Eastern Indians (all atheist or non-religious) that
had such laws long before Christianity, they...hmmm

"Stefan" > wrote in message
...
> C J Campbell wrote:
>
> > If you get right down to it, the only arguments against murder or theft
are
> > basically religious.
>
> No. Moral, yes, but religious, no. This is not the same thing at all.

Really? Explain to me, please, the difference.

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message news:<bvfjd.610$V41.75@attbi_s52>...
> > Well, I have a degree in economics, something more than "a few
> > courses".
>
> Well, welcome to the "Land of Useless Degrees" -- as the owner of an English
> degree, I can sympathize....

I also have a degree in software engineering. A little more useful
financially. But, I would disagree that economics is a useless
degree. It's helped my understand how many things really work in our
country and elsewhere. Like why deficits are bad or why some laws get
passed.

>
> ;-)
>
> > You're mixing up money, accounting, and wealth.
>
> I wasn't mixing up anything -- I was simplifying for the sake of a Usenet
> argument. If you want to get into macro-economic theory, most people here
> (myself included) will quickly doze off.

Hm. Well, I can understand, but too much simplification loses the
heart of it too.

> The pseudo-"science" of economics is one of the main reasons I dropped my
> Business major in my sophomore year. The only area of study I found that
> was less scientific, perhaps, was sociology -- although it was a close race.

Well, it IS a science. Just not physics or chemistry. It determines
general principles and relationships between things. It's also
probably one of the more abused sciences around. After all, it's
easy to make an argument in economics when you ignore facts that
oppose one's position. This happens routinely.

> Let's keep it simple: People who work outside of the government pay all the
> taxes that pay for the people's jobs who work INSIDE the government --
> period. It doesn't much matter if it's stuff that SHOULD or COULD be done
> by the private sector -- cuz it's just not happening.

As a strictly accounting issue, you're right. But, it's not a
strictly accounting issue. If my friend at NACO didn't work for the
FAA, he'd probably still be a CFI (his prior job). If NACO (National
Aeronatical Charting Office) didn't exist, someone would have to do
it. Otherwise we'd have CFIT accidents all over the place.

I'm guessing that those accidents would cost a bundle and depress the
aviation industry something awful. So, there's clearly an economic
benefit for NACO. If there's an economic benefit, it's worth paying
for. So there's income: money given for useful work. And the
outsourcing or privitization of FSS that our government still seems to
want to do will just make my point. In your position if the same work
is done by government FSS it shouldn't be taxed, and if it's done by a
private FSS it should be taxed.

Perhaps the problem is that you're thinking of "the government" as a
monolithic thing. It's not. Neither is it's funding. "Taxes" covers
a lot of ground from local, state income or sales tax, federal income
tax, social security tax, medicare, user fees, etc, etc.

If you want to get into strictly accounting issues, which I read as
the heart of your argument, then the idea of transfer payments between
parts of the government should be considered. This is part of a
modern accounting system for a large organization. However, the
leading party in Congress for the last many years doesn't want to
change the Federal accounting system to something more modern.
Perhaps partly because a better accounting system would make it even
more clear that our current deficit's being covered by Social Security
funds.. These should be in a separate accounting system - we make
companies do that after all.

Anyhow, back to aviation: is it money or lift that makes airplanes
fly? :) Our just our collective hot air in internet discussion
groups?

-Malcolm Teas

C J Campbell wrote:
>
> If you get right down to it, the only arguments against murder or theft are
> basically religious.

Well, if you kill a man, he won't be paying income taxes anymore. There may even be
some drain on the state funds to support his dependents in some fashion. And if
thieves take much of his property, he may be unable to pay his taxes. It also
encourages theft, and the government hates competition.

Either has adverse effects on the health of society, and, like any good parasite
(symbiotic or not), government has a vested interest in keeping its host healthy.

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

Matt Barrow wrote:
>
> And the Greeks, Romans, Eastern Indians (all atheist or non-religious) that
> had such laws long before Christianity, they...hmmm

These people all had religious beliefs.

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

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message >...
> "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.
>
> That is really funny coming from a Democrat. Here we have Democrats accusing
> Bush of behaving too much like a Democrat. ROFL.

Just for historical accuracy I think the "behaving too much like a
Democrat" thing is pretty outdated. After all, the only balanced
budgets in the last thirty years has been with the Democrat Bill
Clinton in office. (Source: Appendix F of the CBO publication The
Budget and Economic Outlook: Fiscal Years 2005-2014.)

No matter what you think of Clinton, neither of the Bush presidents,
nor Ford, nor Reagan managed that. In fact, the deficit climbed
significantly in the Reagan and first Bush terms. First time over one
trillion. two trillion, and three trillion in those years.

So, high time to adjust our view to reality.

-Malcolm Teas

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...
> Well yes, actually, there was a proven connection even during Clinton's
> time. Saddam regularly paid bounties to the families of suicide bombers
> for
> Hamas and offered rewards for anyone who would kill Americans.

Ahh, right. The Hamas. Remind me again...they were the ones that planned
the 9/11 attacks then? Oh, no...it wasn't them, was it?

I'm still waiting for the "connection" that explains why we're in Iraq now.

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...
> If you get right down to it, the only arguments against murder or theft
> are
> basically religious.

Hardly. A peaceful society requires that members of that society be safe
and that their property remains safe. If murder and theft are allowed, the
outcome is assured: rampant violence, and an enormous waste as everyone
invests most of their resources trying to take what the other members of
society have, including their lives.

You don't need religion to justify rules against murder or theft.

Peter Duniho wrote:
>
> I'm still waiting for the "connection" that explains why we're in Iraq now.

I doubt it will surface for many years. The president said he would still have
invaded even if he had known there were no WMDs and no connection between Al Quaida
and Sadam, so I'd say the real reasons for the invasion are things that haven't been
made public by the administration. Lots of other people have advanced theories,
though.

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 wrote:

<snip>

> My main point was simply that the electorate in general believes what they
> want to believe, regardless of what the actual truth is. This is true of
> all people, regardless of party affiliation. My secondary, much less
> important point (especially now that the election is over), might be that
> I personally feel that lying to the public in order to justify a deadly
> war is a much bigger transgression than has been witnessed in the
> Executive branch since the Iran-Contra scandal.
>
> Pete

Very well put Pete.

I'd add that even if the Iraq invasion was justified it was bungled badly.
The administration ignored its own experts and we lost lives because of it.
For that reason alone they don't merit being returned to office.

--
Frank....H

>> The pseudo-"science" of economics is one of the main reasons I dropped my
>> Business major in my sophomore year. The only area of study I found that
>> was less scientific, perhaps, was sociology -- although it was a close
>> race.
>
> Well, it IS a science. Just not physics or chemistry. It determines
> general principles and relationships between things.

If it were a "science" there would be "facts" and "truth" in economics.
Instead, we have "Keynesian" theory, and "Supply Side" theory, and "Trickle
Down" theory, and a hundred other theories, all attempting to provide some
sort of plausible explanation for why the very human creation called an
"economy" actually behaves the way it does.

And this is as the macro-economic level, where things are a bit closer to
science. It's a far cry from physics, chemistry or pure mathematics.

And a the micro-economic level, you might as well toss the bones, or read
your tea leaves -- you'll be just as accurate at predicting the future.

The rest of your points are well taken, however.

(It's MONEY that makes a plane fly, BTW... ;-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

"G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Matt Barrow wrote:
> >
> > And the Greeks, Romans, Eastern Indians (all atheist or non-religious)
that
> > had such laws long before Christianity, they...hmmm
>
> These people all had religious beliefs.

Not in the sense that CJ was using the term.

"Malcolm Teas" > wrote in message
om...
>
> Just for historical accuracy I think the "behaving too much like a
> Democrat" thing is pretty outdated. After all, the only balanced
> budgets in the last thirty years has been with the Democrat Bill
> Clinton in office.

And his role in those surpluses was...?

> "C J Campbell" > wrote in
>> "Cecil Chapman" > wrote in message
>> > 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.
>>
>> That is really funny coming from a Democrat. Here we have Democrats
>> accusing Bush of behaving too much like a Democrat. ROFL.
>
> Just for historical accuracy I think the "behaving too much like a
> Democrat" thing is pretty outdated. After all, the only balanced
> budgets in the last thirty years has been with the Democrat Bill
> Clinton in office. (Source: Appendix F of the CBO publication The
> Budget and Economic Outlook: Fiscal Years 2005-2014.)
>
> No matter what you think of Clinton, neither of the Bush presidents,
> nor Ford, nor Reagan managed that. In fact, the deficit climbed
> significantly in the Reagan and first Bush terms. First time over one
> trillion. two trillion, and three trillion in those years.
>
> So, high time to adjust our view to reality.
>
> -Malcolm Teas

I think a more balanced view might be the relative growth of the budget
vs inflation during various administrations. The main reason Clinton got
to run a surplus was a huge increase in income due to the internet bubble
and the capital gains taxes it generated. While a surplus is a good
thing, it must also be viewed against spending as I certainly don't want
a budget surplus if it means they take all my money!

Frank wrote:
> Peter Duniho wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>>My main point was simply that the electorate in general believes what they
>>want to believe, regardless of what the actual truth is. This is true of
>>all people, regardless of party affiliation. My secondary, much less
>>important point (especially now that the election is over), might be that
>>I personally feel that lying to the public in order to justify a deadly
>>war is a much bigger transgression than has been witnessed in the
>>Executive branch since the Iran-Contra scandal.
>>
>>Pete
>
>
> Very well put Pete.
>
> I'd add that even if the Iraq invasion was justified it was bungled badly.
> The administration ignored its own experts and we lost lives because of it.
> For that reason alone they don't merit being returned to office.
>

There is no evidence that the public was lied to. Having and acting on
bad intelligence isn't the same as lying. That would imply that the
intelligence was known to be bad and I simply don't think that was the case.

Sure, certain things about the invasion and aftermath were bungled, but
you don't fire people for making a mistake or two. If that was the
case, then not a single congressman would survive more than one term.

And most of us would have lost our pilot's licences long ago if a
mistake or two was the metric.


Matt

Matt Barrow wrote:

> "Malcolm Teas" > wrote in message
> om...
>
>>Just for historical accuracy I think the "behaving too much like a
>>Democrat" thing is pretty outdated. After all, the only balanced
>>budgets in the last thirty years has been with the Democrat Bill
>>Clinton in office.
>
>
> And his role in those surpluses was...?
>
>
>

Luck. He was lucky to be following George Bush the First.


Matt

In article >,
(Malcolm Teas) wrote:

> Just for historical accuracy I think the "behaving too much like a
> Democrat" thing is pretty outdated. After all, the only balanced
> budgets in the last thirty years has been with the Democrat Bill
> Clinton in office. (Source: Appendix F of the CBO publication The
> Budget and Economic Outlook: Fiscal Years 2005-2014.)

which brings to mind that saying about the rooster thinking
the sun rises because he crows...

> No matter what you think of Clinton, neither of the Bush presidents,
> nor Ford, nor Reagan managed that. In fact, the deficit climbed
> significantly in the Reagan and first Bush terms. First time over one
> trillion. two trillion, and three trillion in those years.
>
> So, high time to adjust our view to reality.

it's high time people learned which branch of the Federal
Government is responsible for appropriation.

--
Bob Noel

Matt Barrow wrote:
>
> "G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message
> ...

> > These people all had religious beliefs.
>
> Not in the sense that CJ was using the term.

I disagree. C.J. has consistently argued that freedom of religion is right and
proper. That implies a recognition that worship of gods other than the
Judaen/Christian tradition are religions. Perhaps he draws the line at the Hindu
pantheon, but he has not implied that he feels that way, AFAIK.

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

In article <vnpkd.81153$R05.56261@attbi_s53>,
"Jay Honeck" > wrote:


> I'm with Stefan on this one (*gasp!*) -- there are plenty of moral and
> logical arguments against murder or theft that don't involve religion.
>
> I, for one, don't practice any organized religion -- but I've taught my
> children morals that quite closely parallel the Ten Commandments.
>
> Morality and religion often run on parallel tracks, but are, in fact, quite
> different.


I agree with you entirely on this and have done exactly the same thing
with my own four now grown children (and my teaching seems to have,
fortunately, "taken" with all four of them, for which I take some
satisfaction, even if not necessarily credit).

I'd also like to extend my understanding of the non-religious arguments
involved in other of our country's current political issues, and maybe
you can help.

I also happen to have -- as I'd be pretty sure you do also -- at least
one specific close relative (not actually one of my children) who is an
openly gay or lesbian person, and who I also know is absolutely a fine,
moral, admirable, and productive person.

So, I'd really like to know what the non-religious arguments are that
are so strong and so important that many people are pushing us to go all
the way to the extreme measure of a Constitutional amendment, just to
deny people like this the same benefits and rewards (and costs) of
marriage as heterosexual couples enjoy. What are the NONreligious
reasons that justify this very major step?

Please note: I'm not attributing any views on this issue either way to
you; I have no idea what your views are (and my prediction that you'll
have at least a few gay or lesbian individuals among your not too
distant relatives is based only on simple statistics).

But you're in a Red state, and occasionally outspoken on issues; and I'm
in a Blue state, and genuinely puzzled by this particular issue. So,
what are the non-religious argments on this issue that drive the Red
states to this level of action?

Aviv Hod > wrote in message >...
<cut>

> It irks me when I hear that this election was decided on values and
> morals, suggesting that Bush has a monopoly on morality. In fact, I
> argue that the majority of people in the blue states hold moral values
> that make financing social programs that improve the poor's situation
> more important than lower taxes. They hold moral values that recognize
> honesty with the American people on issues of war and peace to be
> important. They also hold moral values that place civil rights and due
> process in our justice system to be sacred. All moral choices that the
> president doesn't agree with me and about half the people that voted.

Look at a usual electoral map for 2004, say:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:UsPresidentialElection2004ElectoralCollege.p ng

And then this map of slave/free states and territories c1860:
http://www.learner.org/biographyofamerica/prog10/maps/

Damn near identical areas.

What moral values again? The USA would have been better off to let
the slavers seceed. They've been dragging the country down for
centuries: slavery, bigotry, and financially. And now they're
sticking us with idiots like Bush.

"Frank" > wrote in message ...
> Peter Duniho wrote:
>
> Very well put Pete.
>
> I'd add that even if the Iraq invasion was justified it was bungled badly.
> The administration ignored its own experts and we lost lives because of
it.
> For that reason alone they don't merit being returned to office.

How do you explain why the military voted overwhelmingly for Bush?

"G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Peter Duniho wrote:
> >
> > I'm still waiting for the "connection" that explains why we're in Iraq
now.
>
> I doubt it will surface for many years. The president said he would still
have
> invaded even if he had known there were no WMDs and no connection between
Al Quaida
> and Sadam

In fact, Kerry has said the same thing.

"Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
...
>
> "G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> >
> > Matt Barrow wrote:
> > >
> > > And the Greeks, Romans, Eastern Indians (all atheist or non-religious)
> that
> > > had such laws long before Christianity, they...hmmm
> >
> > These people all had religious beliefs.
>
> Not in the sense that CJ was using the term.

You presume a lot if you are trying to tell me what I think. Yes, these
people had religious beliefs in the sense that I was using the term.

"G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Matt Barrow wrote:
> >
> > "G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message
> > ...
>
> > > These people all had religious beliefs.
> >
> > Not in the sense that CJ was using the term.
>
> I disagree. C.J. has consistently argued that freedom of religion is right
and
> proper. That implies a recognition that worship of gods other than the
> Judaen/Christian tradition are religions. Perhaps he draws the line at the
Hindu
> pantheon, but he has not implied that he feels that way, AFAIK.

I do not draw the line there.

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
> "C J Campbell" > wrote in message
> ...
> > If you get right down to it, the only arguments against murder or theft
> > are
> > basically religious.
>
> Hardly. A peaceful society requires that members of that society be safe
> and that their property remains safe. If murder and theft are allowed,
the
> outcome is assured: rampant violence, and an enormous waste as everyone
> invests most of their resources trying to take what the other members of
> society have, including their lives.
>
> You don't need religion to justify rules against murder or theft.

No? Why is it important that society be peaceful or safe?

"G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> C J Campbell wrote:
> >
> > If you get right down to it, the only arguments against murder or theft
are
> > basically religious.
>
> Well, if you kill a man, he won't be paying income taxes anymore. There
may even be
> some drain on the state funds to support his dependents in some fashion.
And if
> thieves take much of his property, he may be unable to pay his taxes. It
also
> encourages theft, and the government hates competition.
>
> Either has adverse effects on the health of society, and, like any good
parasite
> (symbiotic or not), government has a vested interest in keeping its host
healthy.

So? There is no cost, either societally or economically, if gay marriages
are legalized?

Besides, why should the government care whether it collects taxes?

"Bob Fry" > wrote

>
> Look at a usual electoral map for 2004, say:
>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:UsPresidentialElection2004ElectoralCollege.p ng
>
> And then this map of slave/free states and territories c1860:
> http://www.learner.org/biographyofamerica/prog10/maps/
>
> Damn near identical areas.
>
> What moral values again? The USA would have been better off to let
> the slavers seceed. They've been dragging the country down for
> centuries: slavery, bigotry, and financially. And now they're
> sticking us with idiots like Bush.

Boy, is that comparison a stretch. I don't see it at all, as a matter of
fact.

Plus you jump all the way to say that the Bush states are better than the
other states. WoW.
--
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

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...
> How do you explain why the military voted overwhelmingly for Bush?

The military that makes a living going to war for the US? The military that
would be cut back if there weren't any apparent need for it?

Is this a trick question? You might as well ask why a Detroit auto worker
votes for a presidential candidate who promises to increase import tariffs
on cars.

"AES/newspost" > wrote in message
...
> [...]
> So, I'd really like to know what the non-religious arguments are that
> are so strong and so important that many people are pushing us to go all
> the way to the extreme measure of a Constitutional amendment, just to
> deny people like this the same benefits and rewards (and costs) of
> marriage as heterosexual couples enjoy. What are the NONreligious
> reasons that justify this very major step?

There aren't any. Allowing gays to marry would harm no one.

That said, from Jay you'll probably "find out" that you can't trust gay
people around children of the same sex. He has a very distorted view of the
consequences of homosexuality, and may very well believe that allowing gays
to marry might hurt someone.

Like you, I'd love to hear any proposed "non-religious argument against gay
marriage". Mainly because all the ones I've heard so far are so stupid,
they make me laugh. And I love a good joke.

Pete

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...
> So? There is no cost, either societally or economically, if gay marriages
> are legalized?

Other than the usual cost of marriage, no. There's nothing special about
gay marriages that make them any worse than any other marriage.

> Besides, why should the government care whether it collects taxes?

All depends on the taxpayer, I'd guess.

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...
> No? Why is it important that society be peaceful or safe?

If you don't believe in trying to maximize human happiness, then there's
nothing important about making society peaceful and safe. Maybe you don't
hold that belief.

Fortunately for me, and lots of other people, as humans we agree that being
happy is a good goal, and thus being peaceful and safe is also a good goal.
Very few people are happy when they are not safely at peace with other
humans.

From a purely pragmatic point of view, humanity can progress intellectually,
technologically, and economically fastest if we aren't wasting time trying
to kill each other.

Pete

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
> "AES/newspost" > wrote in message
> ...
> > [...]
> > So, I'd really like to know what the non-religious arguments are that
> > are so strong and so important that many people are pushing us to go all
> > the way to the extreme measure of a Constitutional amendment, just to
> > deny people like this the same benefits and rewards (and costs) of
> > marriage as heterosexual couples enjoy. What are the NONreligious
> > reasons that justify this very major step?

What are the non-religious reasons to justify allowing homosexual marriage?
Most of those reasons have to do with allowing marital economic benefits. I
suggest that those are a major cost that a lot of people might not be
willing to pay. I also suggest that before we start getting any more
creative with the definition of marriage we might want to consider what
additional demands might be made by other groups. There are fringe groups in
Utah, for example, that want legal recognition of their polygamous
relationships, even though these relationships are typically extremely
abusive and incestuous. Other groups could easily demand the right to marry
children, or to allow children to marry each other.

The Constitutional amendment would never have been needed if a small number
of judges had not decided, on their own and against the wishes of the
general public, to create a right where none had existed before. Now, these
judges are often elected by no one; they are political appointees. They
answer to no one. They simply have decided that no matter what the laws or
the Constitution say, they can simply order anything they want. I happen to
think that this is very dangerous to the rule of law.

You only need to look at how divisive the abortion issue has become in order
to see how allowing judges to decree new law in such major ways can be
harmful. If the abortion issue had been resolved through the political
process, some compromise and consensus might have been reached. Creating a
new right via judicial decree instead polarized the nation, left no room for
compromise, and has resulted in widespread violence, civil disorder, and
disrespect and politicization of the judicial system.

I strongly believe that legalization of homosexual marriage through judicial
fiat could have far-reaching consequences that would make Dredd Scott look
like a minor skirmish. It is not inconceivable that it could lead to civil
war and dissolution of the nation.

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...
> What are the non-religious reasons to justify allowing homosexual
> marriage?

A general belief in non-discrimination is sufficient to justify allowing
homosexual marriage.

> Most of those reasons have to do with allowing marital economic benefits.
> I
> suggest that those are a major cost that a lot of people might not be
> willing to pay.

Suggest all you want, it ain't true. Homosexuals make up a very tiny
proportion of our population. Plenty of corporations already extend
"partner benefits" to unmarried couples, including homosexuals, and it has
not made any sort of noticeable dent in the bottom line.

There's no "major cost". Any potential "minor cost" hypothesized can easily
be offset by further hypothesizing by a "minor benefit". (Economic benefit
to eliminating a discriminated-against group, for example).

> I also suggest that before we start getting any more
> creative with the definition of marriage we might want to consider what
> additional demands might be made by other groups.

Funny. I wonder if the same arguments were made when we gave voting rights
to blacks. Or to women. "Gosh, you never know WHO ELSE will want the same
thing!"

> There are fringe groups in
> Utah, for example, that want legal recognition of their polygamous
> relationships

So, let them. What do I care?

>, even though these relationships are typically extremely
> abusive and incestuous.

Spouse abuse and incest is already illegal, and occurs with frightening
regularity in marriages currently allowed by law. As you also point out,
abuse and incest already happens in "marriages" not legally sanctioned. How
do you know that making such marriages legal won't allow them to be more
public, and provide greater legal standing for spouses who are abused.

> Other groups could easily demand the right to marry
> children, or to allow children to marry each other.

Oh, please. Let them try. A person's sexual orientation isn't anywhere
close to the same difference that exists between a child and an adult. We
have plenty of laws that discriminate against children, and generally for
good reason. You're just being absurd now.

> The Constitutional amendment would never have been needed if a small
> number
> of judges had not decided, on their own and against the wishes of the
> general public, to create a right where none had existed before.

You pretend to know the law better than those judges? Uh, sure. Nice
fantasy world you live in there.

Whether you agree with them or not, judges generally do their best to follow
the letter of the law. If ever there was a canard being thrown around, it's
the "activist judges are changing the law!" panic attack the religious right
is having. I haven't looked as closely at the other states, but in
Washington the two decisions made already (by two different judges!) made
very clear the letter of the law they were following. State constitutional
protection against discrimination is a very strong foundation on which to
base the decisions.

> You only need to look at how divisive the abortion issue has become in
> order
> to see how allowing judges to decree new law in such major ways can be
> harmful.

I can?

> If the abortion issue had been resolved through the political
> process, some compromise and consensus might have been reached. Creating a
> new right via judicial decree instead polarized the nation, left no room
> for
> compromise, and has resulted in widespread violence, civil disorder, and
> disrespect and politicization of the judicial system.

Widespread violence? Civil disorder? Disrespect and politicization of the
judicial system? You're on a trip, man. Other than a handful of
whacked-out fundamentalists who mind-bogglingly believe that it's okay to
kill full-grown adults, but not blastocysts, what violence and civil
disorder are you talking about? They are a mere blip on the radar compared
to other public safety issues, like gang violence, sexual predators, and
even terrorist attacks like OK City and 9/11.

Legalized abortion has in the long-run made our country safer, not less so.

> I strongly believe that legalization of homosexual marriage through
> judicial
> fiat could have far-reaching consequences that would make Dredd Scott look
> like a minor skirmish. It is not inconceivable that it could lead to civil
> war and dissolution of the nation.

Seriously, dude...give me some of what you're taking. I gotta see what the
fuss is all about.

Most people, even the evangelicals and fundamentalists, if homosexual
marriage were legalized, would get over it. The rest of us already do a
host of other crap they think dooms us to hell anyway, and it's not like by
preventing gays from marrying, they prevent them from having sex (well,
maybe it prevents the fundamentalist gays from having sex...I dunno). If we
can get past suffrage for blacks and inter-racial marriage, a few
homosexuals getting married isn't going to doom the country. Not even
close.

Pete