Run In With Mr. Edwards

[Tom S.]

"G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Bob Noel wrote:
> >
> > So, if you are under, say 100, shut up about slavery?
>
> I don't know any slave owners, and I'd bet you don't either.
>
My neighbor...works for the IRS.

[Jay Honeck]

> > State's Rights and free trade are subjugated during wartime -- and
always
> > have been.
>
> During peace time, too.

State's rights have been subjugated, off and on, since the Civil War. Guys
like Ashcroft and Bush claim to support it (and, philosophically, they
probably do) -- but once inside the beltline, they lose all perspective.
Exposure to all that centralized power and perceived (if in-grown) stature
seems to warp everyone who dwells in Washington, D.C. for any length of
time.

Free trade, on the other hand, seems to have been on the upswing for the
past decade, at least.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Newps]

Thomas Borchert wrote:

> Jay,
>
>
>>newly freed public in Iraq
>>
>
>
> If your world has a freed public in Iraq, it is certainly very
> different from mine.

More than 95% of the Iraqi countryside is enjoying freedom right now.
The only parts you hear about on the news is the bad parts.

[Stefan]

Newps wrote:

> More than 95% of the Iraqi countryside is enjoying freedom right now.
> The only parts you hear about on the news is the bad parts.

How often and how long have you been there? And, of course, you speak
fluently Arabic, so you could actually talk to people.

Stefan

[Tom S.]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:Q72Xc.42776$9d6.35843@attbi_s54...
> > > State's Rights and free trade are subjugated during wartime -- and
> always
> > > have been.
> >
> > During peace time, too.
>
> State's rights have been subjugated, off and on, since the Civil War.

State's Rights have virtually disappeared ever since the 14th Amendment. Now
it's not only a matter of the Constitution being the "Supreme Law of the
Land" (A good thing) , but everything in between.

> Guys
> like Ashcroft and Bush claim to support it (and, philosophically, they
> probably do) -- but once inside the beltline, they lose all perspective.
> Exposure to all that centralized power and perceived (if in-grown) stature
> seems to warp everyone who dwells in Washington, D.C. for any length of
> time.
>
> Free trade, on the other hand, seems to have been on the upswing for the
> past decade, at least.

Here, yes; elsewhere, no.

[Tom S.]

"Stefan" > wrote in message
...
> Newps wrote:
>
> > More than 95% of the Iraqi countryside is enjoying freedom right now.
> > The only parts you hear about on the news is the bad parts.
>
> How often and how long have you been there? And, of course, you speak
> fluently Arabic, so you could actually talk to people.
>

And you've talked to...who?


This .sig's for you, Stefan!!
--
"It's one thing to have your head up
your ass, it's another to have your
head up someone else's ass."

[Tom S.]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:DZ1Xc.42728$9d6.13710@attbi_s54...
> > the guts to finally come clean. Why don't you just admit that you are
> > against anything that Kerry/Edwards stand for, and are just another
> > Bush/Cheney toady?!
>
> Because it's not true -- I think they're all assholes.
>
> I guess that makes me an "equal opportunity twit", eh?
>
> ;-)
>
> > My wife and I annually fly to the midwest, and I had planned on
> > stopping by to stay at your 3rd rate motel, just from a sense of
> > pilot-comraderie. Forget it.
>
> Gosh, if you get this worked up about a Usenet discussion -- about
politics,
> of all things! -- I'd appreciate it if you'd stay the hell away from my
> airport.
>
> You're a bit too unstable to be piloting a plane.

He probably things someone honking at him (as he intrudes into someone
else's lane) is "Road Rage".

[Newps]

Martin Hotze wrote:


>
> I could live without foreign politics,

Most small insignificant countries do because they have no choice.


BUT: I do care if there is a junkyard next to my
> house, a highway in front of the school or an airport closing for a new home
> development.

These are local issues and have little if anything to do with which
party you consider yourself affiliated with.

[Newps]

Stefan wrote:

> Newps wrote:
>
>> More than 95% of the Iraqi countryside is enjoying freedom right now.
>> The only parts you hear about on the news is the bad parts.
>
>
> How often and how long have you been there? And, of course, you speak
> fluently Arabic, so you could actually talk to people.

What a moron. It is not necessary that I or you go there, ever.

[Stefan]

Tom S. wrote:

>>>More than 95% of the Iraqi countryside is enjoying freedom right now.
>>>The only parts you hear about on the news is the bad parts.
>>
>>How often and how long have you been there? And, of course, you speak
>>fluently Arabic, so you could actually talk to people.
>
> And you've talked to...who?

He claimed he knew the truth, I didn't. Besides, I do know Arabic people
frome several different countries.

Stefan

--
Sorry, no offending sig here.

[SeeAndAvoid]

"Jay Honeck" wrote...
> That *was* support, right?

Sure, if you call being called a stupid jackass, twit, and told
to shut the hell up when speaking your mind "support".

Chris
--
Steve Bosell for President 2004
"Vote for me or I'll sue you"
www.philhendrieshow.com

[Jay Honeck]

> Sure, if you call being called a stupid jackass, twit, and told
> to shut the hell up when speaking your mind "support".

Ah, hell, those are terms of endearment, coming from Jim...

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

[Dave S]

Jay Honeck wrote:
....
, stating that all we wanted to do was get off the ground before
> dark, since neither of us were legal to fly at night.
>


So whats it going to take for you to get Night Current? It would take a
whole LOT of personal pressure off of you in these sorts of situations?

I'd hate to loose Rec.Aviation's resident Innkeeper to a hasty departure
related case of Get-There-Itis.

And yea, you've got it lucky. We get all sorts of TFR's down in my neck
of the woods.. Remember, Bush Jr lives not too many air miles away, and
Bush senior lives across town, but all the dignitaries fly into EFD, one
of the places I fly out of. I dont forsee too many democratic
appearances here.. Texas is hardly considered a "swing state" but enough
of the other VIP's keeps things interesting.

I'm sorry you had a bad experience, but what was reasonable in your mind
was unreasonable in theirs (security staff). They wanted a sterile ramp
before, during and after "Mr Nobody Candidate's" departure and I doubt
there would have been anything you could have done except call more
attention to yourself. As for the VP being a nobody.. lets not kid
ourselves.. we all know Cheney is running things :)

Dave
Houston, TX

[Jim Weir]

Yeah, pick up on a thread sometime where I'm **REALLY** ****ed.

{;-)

Jim



"Jay Honeck" >
shared these priceless pearls of wisdom:

->> Sure, if you call being called a stupid jackass, twit, and told
->> to shut the hell up when speaking your mind "support".
->
->Ah, hell, those are terms of endearment, coming from Jim...
->
->;-)

Jim Weir (A&P/IA, CFI, & other good alphabet soup)
VP Eng RST Pres. Cyberchapter EAA Tech. Counselor
http://www.rst-engr.com

[Bob Noel]

In article <ud%Wc.56982$Fg5.9642@attbi_s53>, "Jay Honeck"
> wrote:

> Perhaps the ketchup king has a "secret plan" to win the hearts and minds

if waffle told everyone his plan, it wouldn't be secret anymore.

shessh

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

[smackey]

Jim Weir > wrote in message >...
> (smackey)
> shared these priceless pearls of wisdom:
>
ok,ok-what is "snipping"?
Also, if Jay is an equal opportunity critic of the political
candidates, I'll retract my comment. I haven't been keeping track.
I'm just sooooo tired of the political potshots being taken...by both
sides.

Your call, sir. I'd suggest otherwise. I'd also suggest taking a
course on
> learning how to snip.
>
> Jim
>
>
>
> Jim Weir (A&P/IA, CFI, & other good alphabet soup)
> VP Eng RST Pres. Cyberchapter EAA Tech. Counselor
> http://www.rst-engr.com

[Tom S.]

"Bob Noel" > wrote in message
...
> In article <ud%Wc.56982$Fg5.9642@attbi_s53>, "Jay Honeck"
> > wrote:
>
> > Perhaps the ketchup king has a "secret plan" to win the hearts and minds
>
> if waffle told everyone his plan, it wouldn't be secret anymore.

Then he'd have to kill us all.

Let's see: maybe a .50 cal in the back?

[Tom S.]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:1J7Xc.234601$eM2.82594@attbi_s51...
> > Sure, if you call being called a stupid jackass, twit, and told
> > to shut the hell up when speaking your mind "support".
>
> Ah, hell, those are terms of endearment, coming from Jim...
>
> ;-)

I think they call it "Tough Love".

[Tom S.]

"Jim Weir" > wrote in message
...
> Yeah, pick up on a thread sometime where I'm **REALLY** ****ed.
>
> {;-)
>
> Jim
>
In which ones are you NOT "really ****ed"?

[Graham Shevlin]

On Mon, 23 Aug 2004 22:24:51 -0400, Laura >
wrote:

>
>
>mike regish wrote:
>
>> CJ. **** You, you sanctimonious, psycotic piece of ****, faggot, scum
>> sucking, lying whore of the bushies.
>>
>> I've wanted to say that for a long ****ing time but didn't out of
>> poloiteness to the rest of the group. . **** that and **** you. I hope you
>> rot in your own excrement.
>>
>> And your faggot, coward loverboy Bush is the biggest, phoniest asshole I've
>> ever seen. It's people like you who **** up the bell curve and make it
>> possible for such lying sack of ****, self serving liars to get in office to
>> begin with.
>
>Oh, I see. You don't have a logical argument nor position, so you are forced to
>use sexuality slurs and reduce yourself to homophobic language as you call
>somebody names. Would you shout those same words in the streets of your
>hometown, Northhampton? Or do you reserve your toughness for behind your very
>tough keyboard?
CJ had no semblance of an argument or position, and simply uttered a
long list of assertions and slanders. Go back and ask CJ to justify
his garbage. Then I'll be more impressed by your complaining.

[C J Campbell]

"mike regish" > wrote in message
news:2nwWc.47620$Fg5.23823@attbi_s53...
..
>
> There. Now I feel better.
>

Always glad to help.

[Peter Duniho]

"G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message
...
> I recall the media (paper and radio) in this area claiming that
> Bush, Sr. would almost certainly have won if Perot had not been
> running. NPR in particular assumed that most of the people who
> voted for Perot would have voted Republican had Perot dropped out.

Well, they were wrong.

Here's a sample article describing the election outcome:
http://www.fairvote.org/plurality/perot.htm

A relevant quote:
"Exit polls showed that Perot's voters apparently split their preferences
between Clinton and Bush nearly equally, although approximately a third of
them likely would not have voted without him on the ballot."

I don't know what would make NPR make an assumption such as you claim, but
even if you can document their assumption, I'll take exit poll data over an
NPR quote any day.

The article does go on to say that Perot probably hurt Bush more than
Clinton, but not because all the Perot votes would have voted for Bush, and
not in a way that actually affected the end result of the election.

Pete

[C J Campbell]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:caGWc.35159$9d6.22707@attbi_s54...
> > With the exception of the homophobic aspects of your post, I'd like to
> > thank you for saying what I am sure that many of us here on this board
> > have been thinking about Mr. Campbell for a long time.
>
> I've followed both of their posts here for years, and they're both a bit
off
> the beaten trail, as far as I'm concerned.
>
> But C J never stoops to profanity, nor will he fall to the level of 4th
> grade name-calling.

Unfortunately, Jay, I have stooped to profanity in the past, to my
everlasting shame. I will try not to do it again.

I don't claim to represent any mainstream view, least of all a pro-Bush one.
But these guys seem to see a Bush conspiracy behind anyone that contradicts
their opinions in the very least. And they call ME paranoid...

[C J Campbell]

"Earl Grieda" > wrote in message
link.net...
>
>
> Good post. Very accurately describes CJ. However, you forgot "grumpy old
> man".
>

I prefer "curmudgeon." He also forgot "greatest genius who ever lived" and
"icon of manliness." But I do have a quibble with the assertion that I find
Bush physically attractive.

[C J Campbell]

"Thomas Borchert" > wrote in message
...
> Mike,
>
> > There. Now I feel better.
> >
>
> Me too <g>.

Nothing like a good enema, eh Thomas?

[Thomas Borchert]

Jay,

> There's this thing called "democracy" growing over there. Give it time --
> it might catch.
>

Oh yeah, I remember reading about it. A place called Abu Graib seems to be a
true stronghold of democracy in Iraq.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[C J Campbell]

Just out of curiosity, suppose you had continued on toward your airplane.
What would they have done about it?

[Thomas Borchert]

Newps,

> What a moron. It is not necessary that I or you go there, ever.
>

Nope. Watching FoxNews is fully sufficient.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Jim Weir]

There are arguments that will go on in the newsgroups for WEEKS about
netiquette, and whether top posting, bottom posting, or intermediate posting is
the "right" way to do it. What everybody agrees on, though, is that to reply to
a very long post with a sentence or two at the top or the bottom is a waste of
bandwidth.

Notice that everything in the message you sent back to me EXCEPT the part that I
am replying to is "snipped", or deleted. Especially if you bottom post, having
the whole group arrow down to find a one-liner is a waste of bandwidth AND time.

Jim



(smackey)
shared these priceless pearls of wisdom:

->ok,ok-what is "snipping"?



Jim Weir (A&P/IA, CFI, & other good alphabet soup)
VP Eng RST Pres. Cyberchapter EAA Tech. Counselor
http://www.rst-engr.com

[Allen]

"Dave S" > wrote in message
k.net...
>
>
> Jay Honeck wrote:
> ...
> , stating that all we wanted to do was get off the ground before
> > dark, since neither of us were legal to fly at night.
> >
>
>
> And yea, you've got it lucky. We get all sorts of TFR's down in my neck
> of the woods.. Remember, Bush Jr lives not too many air miles away, and
> Bush senior lives across town, but all the dignitaries fly into EFD, one
> of the places I fly out of. I dont forsee too many democratic
> appearances here.. Texas is hardly considered a "swing state" but enough
> of the other VIP's keeps things interesting.
>
> I'm sorry you had a bad experience, but what was reasonable in your mind
> was unreasonable in theirs (security staff). They wanted a sterile ramp
> before, during and after "Mr Nobody Candidate's" departure and I doubt
> there would have been anything you could have done except call more
> attention to yourself. As for the VP being a nobody.. lets not kid
> ourselves.. we all know Cheney is running things :)
>
> Dave
> Houston, TX

The President has been at his ranch since the 18th. Rice, Rumstud and
Cheney have all been in to visit. Some ex-democrat senator was here to
visit too, but was turned away by the Secret Service. (They can provide a
useful service ;) ). We all just file and fly, I like to have him around!

Allen in Waco, TX

[Allen]

"Jim Weir" > wrote in message
...
>
> Notice that everything in the message you sent back to me EXCEPT the part
that I
> am replying to is "snipped", or deleted. Especially if you bottom post,
having
> the whole group arrow down to find a one-liner is a waste of bandwidth AND
time.
>
> Jim
>

Not if it is a GREAT one-liner! badaboom

Allen

[Chuck]

"Jim Weir" > wrote in message
...
> There are arguments that will go on in the newsgroups for WEEKS about
> netiquette, and whether top posting, bottom posting, or intermediate
posting is
> the "right" way to do it. What everybody agrees on, though, is that to
reply to
> a very long post with a sentence or two at the top or the bottom is a
waste of
> bandwidth.
>
> Notice that everything in the message you sent back to me EXCEPT the part
that I
> am replying to is "snipped", or deleted. Especially if you bottom post,
having
> the whole group arrow down to find a one-liner is a waste of bandwidth AND
time.
>
> Jim
>
>
>
> (smackey)
> shared these priceless pearls of wisdom:
>
> ->ok,ok-what is "snipping"?
>
>
>



But it is polite to add <snip> in place of the text that was snipped...


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.744 / Virus Database: 496 - Release Date: 8/24/2004

[Jay Honeck]

> Oh yeah, I remember reading about it. A place called Abu Graib seems to be
a
> true stronghold of democracy in Iraq.

What drivel. Do you judge California's democratic "progress" by what
happened to Rodney King?

In a country of 25 million people, and an Army of 150,000, stupid stuff
happens. Abu Graib was an anomaly, a bump in the road to democratic rule,
and the perps are going to jail.

Which is more than you can say was happening in that same prison under
Sadaam's rule.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

> Just out of curiosity, suppose you had continued on toward your airplane.
> What would they have done about it?

Remember the actor in the first "Terminator" movie who played Linda
Hamilton's lover/protector? The guy who became the father of the future
John Conner, leader of the rebellion against the machines?

The Secret Service guy who was blocking my path looked EXACTLY like him,
only bigger. Much bigger. And he kept talking into his lapel.

He didn't look the kind of guy I wanted to argue with...

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

[CB]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:3orXc.49994$9d6.37313@attbi_s54...
>> Just out of curiosity, suppose you had continued on toward your airplane.
>> What would they have done about it?
>
> Remember the actor in the first "Terminator" movie who played Linda
> Hamilton's lover/protector? The guy who became the father of the future
> John Conner, leader of the rebellion against the machines?
>
> The Secret Service guy who was blocking my path looked EXACTLY like him,
> only bigger. Much bigger. And he kept talking into his lapel.
>
> He didn't look the kind of guy I wanted to argue with...
>
Next time, pick a fight with one of them then come on the group and tell us
about it. I will even chip in $10 towards your bail.

[Geoffrey Barnes]

> Remember the actor in the first "Terminator" movie who played Linda
> Hamilton's lover/protector? The guy who became the father of the future
> John Conner, leader of the rebellion against the machines?

So, you are saying that if you had messed with him, it may have tired him
out. Then, if the opportunity had come up, he would never have had the
energy to "get busy" with Linda Hamilton that night, and John Connor would
never have been born! The implications are tremendous. To coin a phrase,
"you can go crazy just thinking about this stuff!"

Jay, you've saved us all from a future of being ruled by the machines. I
want to shake your hand, mate!


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.742 / Virus Database: 495 - Release Date: 8/19/2004

[mike regish]

That would be an even bigger waste of time than my first response.

Besides, I'm pretty sure he kill filed me long ago.

mike regish

"Graham Shevlin" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 23 Aug 2004 22:24:51 -0400, Laura >
> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >mike regish wrote:
> >
> >> CJ. **** You, you sanctimonious, psycotic piece of ****, faggot, scum
> >> sucking, lying whore of the bushies.
> >>
> >> I've wanted to say that for a long ****ing time but didn't out of
> >> poloiteness to the rest of the group. . **** that and **** you. I hope
you
> >> rot in your own excrement.
> >>
> >> And your faggot, coward loverboy Bush is the biggest, phoniest asshole
I've
> >> ever seen. It's people like you who **** up the bell curve and make it
> >> possible for such lying sack of ****, self serving liars to get in
office to
> >> begin with.
> >
> >Oh, I see. You don't have a logical argument nor position, so you are
forced to
> >use sexuality slurs and reduce yourself to homophobic language as you
call
> >somebody names. Would you shout those same words in the streets of your
> >hometown, Northhampton? Or do you reserve your toughness for behind your
very
> >tough keyboard?
> CJ had no semblance of an argument or position, and simply uttered a
> long list of assertions and slanders. Go back and ask CJ to justify
> his garbage. Then I'll be more impressed by your complaining.

[Bob Fry]

"Jay Honeck" > writes:

> > If your world has a freed public in Iraq, it is certainly very
> > different from mine.
>
> Don't read the papers much, eh?
>
> There's this thing called "democracy" growing over there.

What???!!!

> Give it time --
> it might catch.

Snide Answer #1: Yea, we could use some democracy over here...seeing
as how our current President was not chosen democratically.

Snide Answer #2: Oh, you want other countries to have armed militias
and mobs running around blowing up anything that moves?

[Bob Fry]

Newps > writes:

> More than 95% of the Iraqi countryside is enjoying freedom right
> now. The only parts you hear about on the news is the bad parts.

95% land area? Which means, what, 10% of the people?

Probably 0%. I'm thinking if I'm Buddhist, or Christian, or even the
wrong Muslim sect, I'm probably going to get killed if I don't leave
the country right quick. Some freedom. Kinda reminds me of Ford:

"Any color you want so long as it's black."

[Bob Fry]

"Jay Honeck" > writes:

> We'll know the same way we knew when Viet Nam was over -- we'll coldly turn
> our backs on our Iraqi allies, and cut and run.

Like we turned our back on our European allies when they dared to
disagree with Big Brother?

We have no Iraqi allies. We have no allies at all in the Mideast,
just opportunists who may have momentarily aligned with Big Brother,
but would cut his throat--literally--if they thought it would do them
some good.

[C J Campbell]

"mike regish" > wrote in message
news:T5vXc.188479$8_6.65453@attbi_s04...
> That would be an even bigger waste of time than my first response.
>
> Besides, I'm pretty sure he kill filed me long ago.
>

Nope. I would never kill file anyone so entertaining.

[C J Campbell]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:3orXc.49994$9d6.37313@attbi_s54...
>> Just out of curiosity, suppose you had continued on toward your airplane.
>> What would they have done about it?
>
> Remember the actor in the first "Terminator" movie who played Linda
> Hamilton's lover/protector? The guy who became the father of the future
> John Conner, leader of the rebellion against the machines?
>
> The Secret Service guy who was blocking my path looked EXACTLY like him,
> only bigger. Much bigger. And he kept talking into his lapel.
>
> He didn't look the kind of guy I wanted to argue with...

Seriously? He would have assaulted you? On what grounds?

[C J Campbell]

"Earl Grieda" > wrote in message
link.net...
>
>
> CJ is such a loving, tolerant Mormon.
>

Indeed I am. I am willing to allow others to worship who, what or how they
may. I do require that same courtesy be extended to me. The price of peace
with Islam is too high: we cannot establish a fundamentalist Islamic
government in the United States, enslave our women, and force everyone to
convert to Islam, but that is what they demand. That being the case, the
only alternatives are endless war, the price of which is also too high, or
extermination in the most economic and efficient methods available.

I am far more tolerant than you. You cannot tolerate anyone whose point of
view differs from yours in the slightest.

[Jay Honeck]

> > He didn't look the kind of guy I wanted to argue with...
>
> Seriously? He would have assaulted you? On what grounds?

Gee, I dunno. Disobeying a Secret Service agent's direct order, perhaps?

I have to believe there's a law broken in there, somewhere...
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Dave Stadt]

"Bob Fry" > wrote in message
...
> "Jay Honeck" > writes:
>
> > We'll know the same way we knew when Viet Nam was over -- we'll coldly
turn
> > our backs on our Iraqi allies, and cut and run.
>
> Like we turned our back on our European allies when they dared to
> disagree with Big Brother?
>
> We have no Iraqi allies. We have no allies at all in the Mideast,
> just opportunists who may have momentarily aligned with Big Brother,
> but would cut his throat--literally--if they thought it would do them
> some good.

Haven't you heard the Saudi commercials talking about how they are our
friends. I suspect they had their fingers crossed when they made the
commercials.

[Peter Gottlieb]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:eJxXc.97727$TI1.91302@attbi_s52...
>> > He didn't look the kind of guy I wanted to argue with...
>>
>> Seriously? He would have assaulted you? On what grounds?
>
> Gee, I dunno. Disobeying a Secret Service agent's direct order, perhaps?
>
> I have to believe there's a law broken in there, somewhere...


Wise move. Those guys can turn from extremely polite to extremely serious
in a blink of an eye.

[Jack]

smackey wrote:


> The incident you report had nothing
> to do with John Edwards; it is a result
> of the necessary security that
> surrounds every major pres/VP candidate.

Except that it is not "necessary".


Jack

[C J Campbell]

"Peter Gottlieb" > wrote in message
et...
>
> "Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
> news:eJxXc.97727$TI1.91302@attbi_s52...
>>> > He didn't look the kind of guy I wanted to argue with...
>>>
>>> Seriously? He would have assaulted you? On what grounds?
>>
>> Gee, I dunno. Disobeying a Secret Service agent's direct order, perhaps?
>>
>> I have to believe there's a law broken in there, somewhere...
>
>
> Wise move. Those guys can turn from extremely polite to extremely serious
> in a blink of an eye.

Granted. Still, I wonder by what legal authority they stopped Jay from going
to his plane? Would they have shot him? For merely going about his daily
business? What kind of headlines would that have made? What if Jay had
called the cops?

Solzhenitsyn said in "The Gulag Archipelago" that the Soviet people could
have lifted their oppression at any time. What if, instead of submitting to
the Cheka, the person being arrested in the middle of the night said no? And
everyone around him said no? In the end, that is how the Soviet Union fell.

They know that they cannot kill us all. They know that they need us more
than we need them. Why else do you think they are so frightened? It is
because they can no longer do their dirty work in secret. In every computer
in every house, from every fax machine and every telephone, the word
spreads, no matter what lies are printed in the newspapers, no matter what
they say on the television or broadcast over satellites.

They are few. The people are many. We can also turn from extremely polite to
extremely serious in the blink of an eye. All it takes is a match to kindle
the flame.

[Thomas Borchert]

Jay,

> Do you judge California's democratic "progress" by what
> happened to Rodney King?

Partly, yes, of course!

>
> In a country of 25 million people, and an Army of 150,000, stupid stuff
> happens.

This is NOT "stupid stuff". This is a mind set through all ranks. It is a
general view on the Geneva convention and its worth held

> Which is more than you can say was happening in that same prison under
> Sadaam's rule.

Oh yeah?


--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

Dave,

> Haven't you heard the Saudi commercials talking about how they are our
> friends.
>

It's the money, stupid (no offense meant).

They are not your (or our) friends. They want our money for their oil.

Have you noticed how many of the 19 9/11 pilots were Saudi?

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[CB]

"Thomas Borchert" > wrote in message
...
> Jay,
>
>> Do you judge California's democratic "progress" by what
>> happened to Rodney King?
>
> Partly, yes, of course!
>
>>
>> In a country of 25 million people, and an Army of 150,000, stupid stuff
>> happens.
>
> This is NOT "stupid stuff". This is a mind set through all ranks. It is a
> general view on the Geneva convention and its worth held
>
>> Which is more than you can say was happening in that same prison under
>> Sadaam's rule.
>

Making a comparison with what Sadaams lot used to do is fatuous.

The issue is comparing actual American behavior there with the ideal that
the US is promoting.

Saying that the US brutalises Iraqis less harshly than Sadaam is hardly a
glowing recommendation.

think about it it.

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
wrote:

> > In a country of 25 million people, and an Army of 150,000, stupid stuff
> > happens.
>
> This is NOT "stupid stuff". This is a mind set through all ranks. It is a
> general view on the Geneva convention and its worth held

so, you know the people in all ranks well enough to know their mind set?

do you know even one?


> > Which is more than you can say was happening in that same prison under
> > Sadaam's rule.
>
> Oh yeah?

yep.

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

[Bob Noel]

In article >, "CB"
> wrote:

> Saying that the US brutalises Iraqis less harshly than Sadaam is hardly a
> glowing recommendation.

duh

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

[Thomas Borchert]

Bob,

> so, you know the people in all ranks well enough to know their mind set?
>

Look at the list of people involved. look at their ranks. They go through
all ranks, from private to general.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Jay Honeck]

> They are few. The people are many. We can also turn from extremely polite
to
> extremely serious in the blink of an eye. All it takes is a match to
kindle
> the flame.

I do believe that a revolution is coming in America.

If you extend all the current trend-lines out to their ultimate conclusion,
it appears inevitable.

Or, of course, something bizarre could occur. It used to be called
"compromise" -- although I haven't seen it in quite a while, and I'm not
sure the problems we've got now lend themselves well to it.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Trent Moorehead]

"CB" > wrote in message
...

> Saying that the US brutalises Iraqis less harshly than Sadaam is hardly a
> glowing recommendation.
>
> think about it it.

<snip>

I just recently heard an interview with a young man who was the sole
survivor of a genocidal attack in the Kurdish territory. He was twelve years
old at the time. We have found the mass graves of the attack and the dead
numbered 3,000 in this one attack alone. He was the SOLE survivor. They were
rounded up into buses and were driven to an outlying area where bulldozers
sat waiting by large holes.

Imagine being twelve years old and experiencing this. They were told to get
into the holes and then Saddam's soldiers started shooting them with machine
guns. There was a lady next to him who was very pregnant. They shot her so
much that her baby actually fell out.

The boy climbed out and pleaded with the gunman closest to him. The man
threw him into the pile and shot him. He was shot 4 times in the back and
once in the leg, IIRC. He played dead and when the soldiers went over to
take a break, he crawled out and into the next grave which was empty at the
time. The bulldozer covered over all the dead bodies (and perhaps some that
were still hanging on to life) while the sun lowered into the sky. Once it
was dark, the boy limped away. He walked for two hours and was taken in by a
Bedouin family.

That boy is now 25 or so. He is afraid that he will be killed because he is
an eyewitness to Saddam's cruelty and he plans to testify against Saddam in
his trial. The people who want him dead are Saddam supporters, naturally.
How anyone would want that murderer back in power really escapes me.

There are thousands of similar stories that have been told, but our media
wants to focus on things that America does wrong, like Abu Grahib. But
comparing the two is laughable.

I am not saying that we should overlook our mistakes, but good God, let's
keep things in perspective at least.

-Trent
PP-ASEL

[C J Campbell]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:ktGXc.54565$9d6.34678@attbi_s54...
>> They are few. The people are many. We can also turn from extremely polite
> to
>> extremely serious in the blink of an eye. All it takes is a match to
> kindle
>> the flame.
>
> I do believe that a revolution is coming in America.
>

The thing that keeps a lid on revolution is the perception that change is
possible through elections. We get to 'revolt' every four years.

However such a revolution takes place, it is very unlikely to be the one
that bin Laden dreamed of.

[Thomas Borchert]

Trent,

> There are thousands of similar stories that have been told, but our media
> wants to focus on things that America does wrong, like Abu Grahib. But
> comparing the two is laughable.
>

Which is why nobody does.

First, as you say, the Saddam horror stories have been told extensively in
the media.

That's no reason not to report about Abu Graib, though. Especially since
the American standard should be different from Saddam's.


--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Tom S.]

"Bob Noel" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> wrote:
>
> > > In a country of 25 million people, and an Army of 150,000, stupid
stuff
> > > happens.
> >
> > This is NOT "stupid stuff". This is a mind set through all ranks. It is
a
> > general view on the Geneva convention and its worth held
>
> so, you know the people in all ranks well enough to know their mind set?
>
> do you know even one?
>
>
> > > Which is more than you can say was happening in that same prison under
> > > Sadaam's rule.
> >
> > Oh yeah?
>
> yep.

For the Iraqi's, prison would have been much better than the 300,000 found
in mass graves.

http://trojanhorseshoes.blogfodder.net/archives/009311.html

[Tom S.]

"Trent Moorehead" > wrote in message
...
>
> "CB" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > Saying that the US brutalises Iraqis less harshly than Sadaam is hardly
a
> > glowing recommendation.
> >
> > think about it it.
>
> <snip>
>
> I just recently heard an interview with a young man who was the sole
> survivor of a genocidal attack in the Kurdish territory. He was twelve
years
> old at the time. We have found the mass graves of the attack and the dead
> numbered 3,000 in this one attack alone. He was the SOLE survivor. They
were
> rounded up into buses and were driven to an outlying area where bulldozers
> sat waiting by large holes.

http://trojanhorseshoes.blogfodder.net/archives/009311.html

Check the graphic at the bottom of the page (300,000 dots...each one
representing a life snuffed out by the left's hero of the moment (as long as
it provides an argument against Bush or whoever might have wound up in the
White House in 2000).

[Tom S.]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:ktGXc.54565$9d6.34678@attbi_s54...
> > They are few. The people are many. We can also turn from extremely
polite
> to
> > extremely serious in the blink of an eye. All it takes is a match to
> kindle
> > the flame.
>
> I do believe that a revolution is coming in America.

I do, too. Unfortunately, unless Americans, by and large, change between the
ears, it will onyl end up worse.

Remember that all those politicians in Washington, your state capital, your
county and city offices, was put in there by votes of your firends and
neighbors (certainly YOU had nothing to do with it...di you?).

> If you extend all the current trend-lines out to their ultimate
conclusion,
> it appears inevitable.

Yup...no longer a matter of IF, but of WHEN.

>
> Or, of course, something bizarre could occur. It used to be called
> "compromise" -- although I haven't seen it in quite a while, and I'm not
> sure the problems we've got now lend themselves well to it.

Maybe it was those who were willing to compromise their liberty for a
freebie or other handout had something to do with it.


--
"He that would make his own liberty secure,
must guard even his enemy from oppression;
for if he violates this duty, he establishes
a precedent that will reach to himself." -- Thomas Paine

[Jim Weir]

Most of us believe that what we get every four years is REALLY revolting.

Jim



->The thing that keeps a lid on revolution is the perception that change is
->possible through elections. We get to 'revolt' every four years.



Jim Weir (A&P/IA, CFI, & other good alphabet soup)
VP Eng RST Pres. Cyberchapter EAA Tech. Counselor
http://www.rst-engr.com

[Tom S.]

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
> news:ktGXc.54565$9d6.34678@attbi_s54...
> >> They are few. The people are many. We can also turn from extremely
polite
> > to
> >> extremely serious in the blink of an eye. All it takes is a match to
> > kindle
> >> the flame.
> >
> > I do believe that a revolution is coming in America.
> >
>
> The thing that keeps a lid on revolution is the perception that change is
> possible through elections. We get to 'revolt' every four years.
>
> However such a revolution takes place, it is very unlikely to be the one
> that bin Laden dreamed of.

More likely it'll look like the Weimar Republic.

[Trent Moorehead]

"Thomas Borchert" > wrote in message
...
> Trent,
>
> > There are thousands of similar stories that have been told, but our
media
> > wants to focus on things that America does wrong, like Abu Grahib. But
> > comparing the two is laughable.
> >
>
> Which is why nobody does.

Well, Ted Kennedy did. Granted, his comments about Abu Ghraib were largely
for political effect, but he directly compared and equated our management of
the prison to Saddam's.

> First, as you say, the Saddam horror stories have been told extensively in
> the media.

They have, but it's old news. You've got to dig to find them now. Reporting
stories about America's indiscretions is much more juicy. And damaging to
our soldiers who haven't participated in such crimes.

>
> That's no reason not to report about Abu Graib, though. Especially since
> the American standard should be different from Saddam's.

Agreed. I'm just saying that we need to keep perspective. Comparing Lindy
England and that bunch to Saddam and his henchmen is like comparing someone
who got caught speeding to Charles Manson.

-Trent

[Tom S.]

"Jack" > wrote in message
...
> smackey wrote:
>
>
> > The incident you report had nothing
> > to do with John Edwards; it is a result
> > of the necessary security that
> > surrounds every major pres/VP candidate.
>
> Except that it is not "necessary".
>
Teddy Roosevelt, Milwaukee 1912.

[Tom S.]

"Jim Weir" > wrote in message
...
> Most of us believe that what we get every four years is REALLY revolting.
>
Evidently, every TWO years, too. Strange thing, though, 98+% of the time
they do it to themselves AGAIN.

[C J Campbell]

"Jim Weir" > wrote in message
...
> Most of us believe that what we get every four years is REALLY revolting.
>
> Jim

Especially this year, when the choice appears to be between Darth Vader
("Bring me the prisoners! I want them alive!") and Gollum (tracing the image
of a heart shaped medallion: "Soooo beautiful. Soooo Preciousss.")

[JohnMcGrew]

In article >, Newps >
writes:

>You'll >never see a stick it top the rich surcharge like that again.

Are you kidding? Kerry has already proposed one.

John

[JohnMcGrew]

In article >, "Trent Moorehead"
> writes:

>What a stupid tax! Any policy based on class envy should be examined
>extremely closely. I am also very suspicious of very wealthy polititians who
>want to penalize wealthy people by increasing their taxes.

It was worse than stupid. Not only did it not collect very much (since people
simply avoided it by purchasing abroad, or not at all) it actually ended up as
a massive net loss to governments at all levels, by tax revenues lost from all
of the businesses that supported the industry, as well as the cost of the
benefits paid to the newly unemployed workers.

This is why luxury taxes in general don't generate very much revenue. Since
they are on "luxuries", which by definition are things that people can easily
live without, it is a simple tax to avoid. This is why the government would
rather tax things that you can't easily do without, such as energy,
transportation, or communications. (Remember Al Gore's BTU tax?)

There was a great study some time back, about the dangers of "envy" and
"revenge". It made the case that people are actually willing to suffer a net
loss, if they actually believe that somebody else that they don't like (like
"the rich") is getting socked worse that they are. This is a very dangerous
phenomenon in a supposed "democracy".

John

[Dave Stadt]

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Jim Weir" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Most of us believe that what we get every four years is REALLY
revolting.
> >
> > Jim
>
> Especially this year, when the choice appears to be between Darth Vader
> ("Bring me the prisoners! I want them alive!") and Gollum (tracing the
image
> of a heart shaped medallion: "Soooo beautiful. Soooo Preciousss.")

I thought the choice was more on the order of Beavis and Butt Head.

[Bob Fry]

"Jay Honeck" > writes:

> Or, of course, something bizarre could occur. It used to be called
> "compromise" -- although I haven't seen it in quite a while,

Hey Jay, what is this "compromise" you're talking about?

Repeal of all taxes?

Only Repubs and Libertarians in office?

Our military in every 3rd world country imposing "democracy" on them?

Just wondering what "compromise" means to a mid-westerner.

[Jay Honeck]

> Just wondering what "compromise" means to a mid-westerner.

Compromise can't really happen until we return to a time before political
correctness made it wrong to call someone "crippled" but made it okay to
vocally and publicly insult someone for what they believe.

Compromise won't happen until we return to the days when public officials
had a sense of decorum, and were discreet about their personal lives.

Compromise won't ever happen until both sides of the aisle stop calling the
other side names, and until they refrain from viewing the other side as less
intelligent.

No one communicates anymore. No one listens anymore. Even here, in this
most casual of forums, participants resort to the basest language and vilest
implications, simple because the other side won't bend to their way of
viewing the world.

It's really just two camps, hunkered down in trenches, lobbing hand grenades
over the wire. Occasionally blood is drawn, but nothing more takes place.
No peace is declared, no retreat sounded.

Sadly, I don't think this is going to change soon, as the moral issues
dividing the two parties are so stark.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Peter Gottlieb]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:nARXc.246074$eM2.18242@attbi_s51...
> Compromise can't really happen until we return to a time before political
> correctness made it wrong to call someone "crippled" but made it okay to
> vocally and publicly insult someone for what they believe.

Fortunately, most "political correctness" is a silly diversion and is doomed
to the annals of history. I hope. You are right about the insulting - that
pretty much closes the door on understanding and compromise.

> Compromise won't happen until we return to the days when public officials
> had a sense of decorum, and were discreet about their personal lives.

I think they are discreet as they ever were, it's just that now the other
side blows it out of proportion (ok, maybe bad choice of words). I actually
really don't care if some politician has an affair. But I do care when
those on the other side of the political fence make enough of it to disrupt
the workings of government. Many people we vote into power, on both sides,
have had all sorts of trysts while in office, for hundreds of years. Maybe
it has something to do with the power, but let's try not to let something
like that interfere with their job!

> Compromise won't ever happen until both sides of the aisle stop calling
> the
> other side names, and until they refrain from viewing the other side as
> less
> intelligent.

Very true. The reason that longstanding disputes have been around so long
is that both sides have valid arguments.

> No one communicates anymore. No one listens anymore. Even here, in this
> most casual of forums, participants resort to the basest language and
> vilest
> implications, simple because the other side won't bend to their way of
> viewing the world.

Oh, some get crazy and some don't. Usual mix, different strokes for
different folks. Debating and arguing points takes a lot of thought and
energy and sometimes there is some resentment when the other side doesn't
just cave right in (yeah, like that's realistic).

> It's really just two camps, hunkered down in trenches, lobbing hand
> grenades
> over the wire. Occasionally blood is drawn, but nothing more takes place.
> No peace is declared, no retreat sounded.

Well, you're trying to do a little bit.

> Sadly, I don't think this is going to change soon, as the moral issues
> dividing the two parties are so stark.

I don't agree. I see a lot of willingness of certain people to try, and to
try to find common ground, of which there is plenty. We all have much more
in common than not. To begin with, we all share a common love so we're like
some sort of family. And, like most families, we are unfortunately somewhat
disfunctional, but still a family...

Peter

[Mr. Smith]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:p91Wc.21556$9d6.17529@attbi_s54...
If this is what we have to look forward to under a
> Kerry/Edwards presidency, I fear the worst is yet to come.
>
> As we climbed out I laughingly told my kids that this was "your
> tax-dollars
> at work." I then closed my eyes and wished fervently that 9/11 had never
> happened...

Jesus, I wish 9/11 had never happened either. In addition to the lives that
were lost, we've had to spend billions of dollar since to boost security,
we've made every line at an airport 4 times as long as they were before,
we've given all sorts of security personel including secret service, INS,
FBI etc. free license to be jerks (for the minority among them that want to
be jerks), and the worst part is you know that 99% of this effort is wasted;
it is to prevent the <1% of cases where a real risk is involved.

As for attributing this kind of behavior to a Kerry/Edwards presidency, I
sincerely doubt it has anything to do with them (as I am sure you know).
This is the domain of the secret service who don't change when a new
president gets elected. FWIW, AOPA tells us that Kerry has been quite a bit
more accomodating to GA by not utilizing TFR every place the campaign jet is
scheduled to land.

[Jay Honeck]

> > Sadly, I don't think this is going to change soon, as the moral issues
> > dividing the two parties are so stark.
>
> I don't agree. I see a lot of willingness of certain people to try, and
to
> try to find common ground, of which there is plenty. We all have much
more
> in common than not. To begin with, we all share a common love so we're
like
> some sort of family. And, like most families, we are unfortunately
somewhat
> disfunctional, but still a family...

Peter, I wasn't talking about *here* -- I was talking about in the real
world.

Here, we're ALL insane, inextricably bound by our passion for flying.

Rec.Aviation is like a world-wide Alcoholics Anonymous meeting, except that
we're all reveling in our drunkenness. And nothing as silly as politics can
separate us in that regard.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Thomas Borchert]

Jay,

> Compromise won't happen until we return to the days when public officials
> had a sense of decorum,
>

And when, pray, tell, was that? When slavery was still the big thing?

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Blanche]

Dave Stadt > wrote:
>
>"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
>>
>> "Jim Weir" > wrote in message
>> > Most of us believe that what we get every four years is REALLY
>revolting.
>> >
>> > Jim
>>
>> Especially this year, when the choice appears to be between Darth Vader
>> ("Bring me the prisoners! I want them alive!") and Gollum (tracing the
>image
>> of a heart shaped medallion: "Soooo beautiful. Soooo Preciousss.")
>
>I thought the choice was more on the order of Beavis and Butt Head.

No. Beavis & ButtHead are (at times) amusing.

But I truly believe you denigrate Mr. Vader by comparing him to
the current occupant of that place at 1600 whatever. Vadr knew how to
motivate his troops. And in the end, put himself on the front line.
(Well, at least in Episode 4 -- or SW1, however you wish to count)

[C J Campbell]

"Blanche" > wrote in message
...
> Dave Stadt > wrote:
>>
>>"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
>>>
>>> "Jim Weir" > wrote in message
>>> > Most of us believe that what we get every four years is REALLY
>>revolting.
>>> >
>>> > Jim
>>>
>>> Especially this year, when the choice appears to be between Darth Vader
>>> ("Bring me the prisoners! I want them alive!") and Gollum (tracing the
>>image
>>> of a heart shaped medallion: "Soooo beautiful. Soooo Preciousss.")
>>
>>I thought the choice was more on the order of Beavis and Butt Head.
>
> No. Beavis & ButtHead are (at times) amusing.
>
> But I truly believe you denigrate Mr. Vader by comparing him to
> the current occupant of that place at 1600 whatever. Vadr knew how to
> motivate his troops. And in the end, put himself on the front line.
> (Well, at least in Episode 4 -- or SW1, however you wish to count)

Lord Vader repeatedly allowed his entire army to be destroyed by a band of
teenage rebels. His men were motivated only by fear of him. Everywhere he
went he provoked rebellion against the empire. Even in "A New Hope" he
showed up only after the battle was already won. He was obsessed with
security but ineffective in implementing it.

It is best not to stretch the comparison too far -- our soldiers are not
motivated by fear of Bush, for example.

I am looking forward to the release of "The Revenge of the Sith" in May.

[Jim Rosinski]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote

> > Just wondering what "compromise" means to a mid-westerner.
>
> Compromise can't really happen until we return to a time before political
> correctness made it wrong to call someone "crippled" but made it okay to
> vocally and publicly insult someone for what they believe.
>
> Compromise won't happen until we return to the days when public officials
> had a sense of decorum, and were discreet about their personal lives.
>
> Compromise won't ever happen until both sides of the aisle stop calling the

> other side names, and until they refrain from viewing the other side as less
> intelligent.
>
> No one communicates anymore. No one listens anymore. Even here, in this
> most casual of forums, participants resort to the basest language and vilest
> implications, simple because the other side won't bend to their way of
> viewing the world.
>
> It's really just two camps, hunkered down in trenches, lobbing hand grenades
> over the wire. Occasionally blood is drawn, but nothing more takes place.
> No peace is declared, no retreat sounded.
>
> Sadly, I don't think this is going to change soon, as the moral issues
> dividing the two parties are so stark.

Six paragraphs of blather, but no answer to the actual question asked.
And why exactly does "compromise" represent some sort of holy grail
you seem to imply?

Jim Rosinski
N3825Q

[Jim Weir]

Pity. I was so looking forward to "The Revenge Of The Electorate" in November.
Sniff.

{;-)

Jim




"C J Campbell" >
shared these priceless pearls of wisdom:

->I am looking forward to the release of "The Revenge of the Sith" in May.
->

Jim Weir (A&P/IA, CFI, & other good alphabet soup)
VP Eng RST Pres. Cyberchapter EAA Tech. Counselor
http://www.rst-engr.com

[Jim Rosinski]

"Peter Gottlieb" > wrote

> I actually
> really don't care if some politician has an affair. But I do care when
> those on the other side of the political fence make enough of it to disrupt
> the workings of government.

How about those that committed rape, in the literal sense of the word,
while they were governor?

And why is having the workings of government disrupted necessarily a
bad thing?

Jim Rosinski
N3825Q

[Jack]

Tom S. wrote:

>>smackey wrote:
>>
>> ...the necessary security that
>>>surrounds every major pres/VP candidate.

> Teddy Roosevelt, Milwaukee 1912.

Thanks for the great set-up, TS.

I can't imagine Kerry deciding that since he wasn't coughing up blood that he would
press on with his scheduled speech after taking a bullet, as TR did. We could expect
JFK2, IAW his previous behavior WRT PH and other medal claims, to proclaim himself a
hero from a plush hospital suite, while Edwards launched huge civil law suits against
every deep pocket within a hundred miles.

Sirhan Bishara Sirhan, an Arab terrorist if ever there was one, would make a better
example of why Presidential candidates need protection. Of course, there is no
expectation that Kerry could change this country for the better, as RFK could have done.


Jack

[Jim Rosinski]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote

> It's kinda refreshing to see the Libertarians running a legitimate candidate
> for office. Not the usual unelectable nut-case type they've run in the
> past...

It's a little late for a response to this, but I couldn't let it go by
unchallenged. For now any Libertarian running for president is by
definition unelectable so no argument there. But "nut-case type"?
Harry Browne (last two elections) and Ron Paul before that are nothing
of the sort. Browne is one of the most well-reasoned and soft-spoken
politicians I've ever heard. Ron Paul became a Republican US
congressman after his unsuccessful Presidential run. Perhaps you're
thinking of Russel Means, who ran something like 12 years ago but lost
the nomination (to Ron Paul?). Maybe a hothead, but still way better
than anybody the Republicans or Democrats have inflicted on us since.

Jim Rosinski
N3825Q

[CB]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:nARXc.246074$eM2.18242@attbi_s51...
>> Just wondering what "compromise" means to a mid-westerner.
>
> Compromise can't really happen until we return to a time before political
> correctness made it wrong to call someone "crippled" but made it okay to
> vocally and publicly insult someone for what they believe.
>
>> Sadly, I don't think this is going to change soon, as the moral issues
> dividing the two parties are so stark.

see that's your problem Jay you are naive. Neither party has any morals, and
they are so united in the one thing they have in common, getting into power.

The problem with two party politics is that its really a case of having a
pig in a poke. Its damnation whichever way you vote.

some political commentator commented that "every political career ends in
failure".

cb

[Tom S.]

"Jim Rosinski" > wrote in message
m...
> Harry Browne (last two elections) and Ron Paul before that are nothing
> of the sort. Browne is one of the most well-reasoned and soft-spoken
> politicians I've ever heard.

Hmm...I found him loaded with contradictions and his "virtual anarchist"
stance was adolescent at best.

But then, I worked on the 1996 campaign team for Rick Tomkins.

[Bob Noel]

In article >, "CB"
> wrote:

> see that's your problem Jay you are naive. Neither party has any morals,
> and
> they are so united in the one thing they have in common, getting into
> power.

nope. the sole objective is being re-elected.

think about it.

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

[Jay Honeck]

> Six paragraphs of blather, but no answer to the actual question asked.
> And why exactly does "compromise" represent some sort of holy grail
> you seem to imply?

Because if the people of the United States don't re-learn what "compromise"
means, we're headed down a one-way path to Balkanization.

In some ways, and in some locales, it's already happened.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

> >> Sadly, I don't think this is going to change soon, as the moral issues
> > dividing the two parties are so stark.
>
> see that's your problem Jay you are naive. Neither party has any morals,
and
> they are so united in the one thing they have in common, getting into
power.

I didn't say the "party's moral issues are stark" -- I said "the moral
issues dividing the two parties are so stark."

The parties have no morals. However, the moral issues (abortion; taxes;
marriage; stem cell research; etc.) that separate the parties are in areas
that don't lend themselves well to compromise, since there are usually only
two diametrically opposed choices for each issue.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Michael 182]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:brbYc.251496$eM2.49663@attbi_s51...
> <snip> However, the moral issues (abortion; taxes;
> marriage; stem cell research; etc.) that separate the parties are in areas
> that don't lend themselves well to compromise, since there are usually
only
> two diametrically opposed choices for each issue.

But there are plenty of people in each party that disagree with the party
line on one or more of these issues. Cheney's stance on the marraige
amendment is a particularly interesting example. There are plenty of
Republicans who wish President Bush would leave his religion at church. I
know Rush Limbaugh fans who believe the second amendment is outdated. And
there are Democrats who are against abortion. And for school vouchers. (Put
me at the top of the school voucher list)

While the party lines are didactic and polarized, the populations within
them are much more diverse.

Michael

[Jim Rosinski]

"Michael 182" > wrote

> While the party lines are didactic and polarized, the populations within
> them are much more diverse.

In some ways yes. But on the absolutely crucial issue (to me anyway)
of the growth of government, the Reps. and Dems. stand united: bigger
government is good. Dems. want to pay for it with higher taxes. Reps.
want to pay for it with higher budget deficits. Pick your poison.

Jim Rosinski
N3825Q

[Jim Rosinski]

"Tom S." > wrote

> "Jim Rosinski" > wrote in message
> m...
> > Harry Browne (last two elections) and Ron Paul before that are nothing
> > of the sort. Browne is one of the most well-reasoned and soft-spoken
> > politicians I've ever heard.
>
> Hmm...I found him loaded with contradictions and his "virtual anarchist"
> stance was adolescent at best.
>
> But then, I worked on the 1996 campaign team for Rick Tomkins.

No kidding!?!? YOU worked for THE Rick Tomkins???? I stand in awe!!!
Who is he, anyway?

To state the point of my earlier post more bluntly: I suspect Jay was
just blowing smoke about substantial differences between the current
LP Presidential candidate vs. earlier ones. Call them all nut-cases,
fine. LP principles aren't for everyone. Call them all statesmen,
fine. But a simple assertion that the current candidate is reasonable
while earlier ones were nut-cases needs some substantiation.

Jim Rosinski
N3825Q

[Michael 182]

"Jim Rosinski" > wrote in message
om...
> "Michael 182" > wrote
>
> > While the party lines are didactic and polarized, the populations within
> > them are much more diverse.
>
> In some ways yes. But on the absolutely crucial issue (to me anyway)
> of the growth of government, the Reps. and Dems. stand united: bigger
> government is good. Dems. want to pay for it with higher taxes. Reps.
> want to pay for it with higher budget deficits. Pick your poison.

Good point. Assuming this is the critical issue, you really are screwed.

Michael

[Jim Rosinski]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote

> > Six paragraphs of blather, but no answer to the actual question asked.
> > And why exactly does "compromise" represent some sort of holy grail
> > you seem to imply?
>
> Because if the people of the United States don't re-learn what "compromise"
> means, we're headed down a one-way path to Balkanization.
>
> In some ways, and in some locales, it's already happened.

In this and other posts, you seem to equate compromise with listening
to opposing positions and giving them due consideration. I disagree.
These are manifestly different behaviors. I'll listen to someone who
says for example "Taxes should be raised for ...". But if I think it's
a waste I sure as hell won't respond "OK let's compromise and only
raise taxes half as much as you want".

Jim Rosinski
N3825Q

[Tom S.]

"Bob Noel" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, "CB"
> > wrote:
>
> > see that's your problem Jay you are naive. Neither party has any morals,
> > and
> > they are so united in the one thing they have in common, getting into
> > power.
>
> nope. the sole objective is being re-elected.

1) Getting INTO power.
2) Staying in power.

That's about it.
> think about it.

Indeed, notice the hysterics/psychosis of those dumped from power (i.e.,
Democrats, Taliban, Iraq...)

[Tom S.]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:0mbYc.62972$9d6.35025@attbi_s54...
> > Six paragraphs of blather, but no answer to the actual question asked.
> > And why exactly does "compromise" represent some sort of holy grail
> > you seem to imply?
>
> Because if the people of the United States don't re-learn what
"compromise"
> means, we're headed down a one-way path to Balkanization.

What does it mean to you?
Seems Americans have been compromising for generations (and geting noting in
return).


> In some ways, and in some locales, it's already happened.

[Bob Noel]

In article >, "Tom S."
> wrote:

> > nope. the sole objective is being re-elected.
>
> 1) Getting INTO power.
> 2) Staying in power.

right. and summarized as getting re-elected.

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

[CB]

"Tom S." > wrote in message
...
>
> "Bob Noel" > wrote in message
> ...
>> In article >, "CB"
>> > wrote:
>>
>> > see that's your problem Jay you are naive. Neither party has any
>> > morals,
>> > and
>> > they are so united in the one thing they have in common, getting into
>> > power.
>>
>> nope. the sole objective is being re-elected.
>
> 1) Getting INTO power.
> 2) Staying in power.
>
> That's about it.
>> think about it.
>
> Indeed, notice the hysterics/psychosis of those dumped from power (i.e.,
> Democrats, Taliban, Iraq...)
and the hysterics/psychosis of those who think they may be dumped from power
(ie the Texas ****)

[Jay Honeck]

> In this and other posts, you seem to equate compromise with listening
> to opposing positions and giving them due consideration. I disagree.
> These are manifestly different behaviors. I'll listen to someone who
> says for example "Taxes should be raised for ...". But if I think it's
> a waste I sure as hell won't respond "OK let's compromise and only
> raise taxes half as much as you want".

Well, that's EXACTLY what compromise is -- and it's been going on in America
for generations.

If fact, it is this almost unique feature of American political life that
has enabled our democracy to survive while so many others have perished.
Our ability to come to terms with our opponents -- as opposed to crushing
them -- is what makes our democracy work.

At the moment, however, I see very little of this sentiment at the national
level. It's "my way, or the highway" on a myriad of issues -- and the
rhetoric is reaching a dangerous volume.

Trouble is, the real "meaty" issues that divide Republicans from Democrats
(i.e.: Abortion; marriage; stem cell research; the purpose of government;
taxes; the right to bear arms; religion; etc.) are "black and white" issues,
with little room for compromise.

I don't think that any of this is new. However, our parents and
grand-parents were able to keep a lid on these kinds of disagreements by
maintaining a higher level of courtesy and decorum that has been all but
lost in America. Today, no one bats an eye at calling someone else "stupid"
or "immoral" because of what they believe -- and this is a radical change
that is harming our political system.

This naturally creates hard feelings, making any compromise MUCH more
difficult to achieve. The end result is political grid-lock, followed by
increasing frustration amongst the electorate, followed by revolution or
civil war, if carried to its ultimate conclusion.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Beckman]

"Michael 182" > wrote in message
news:2FUWc.55248$Fg5.42074@attbi_s53...
>
> "Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
> news:nVTWc.54974$Fg5.20899@attbi_s53...
>>
>> And I guess that anyone who wasn't of age in the '60s, really shouldn't
> say
>> ANYTHING about that whole screwed up decade, right?
>
> Hey, I liked the 60's! At least what I remember of them...
>
> Michael
>
>
>

Someone once told me: "If you remember the 60's...then you DON'T remember
the 60's..."

FWIW...

Jay

[Wdtabor]

In article <78vYc.224$_g7.16@attbi_s52>, "Jay Honeck"
> writes:

>
>I don't think that any of this is new. However, our parents and
>grand-parents were able to keep a lid on these kinds of disagreements by
>maintaining a higher level of courtesy and decorum that has been all but
>lost in America. Today, no one bats an eye at calling someone else "stupid"
>or "immoral" because of what they believe -- and this is a radical change
>that is harming our political system.
>

Jay,

I have an alternate theory for the polarization in US political life, and that
is that we have created an illusion that makes our political efforts from both
sides produce counter intuitive results. That leads to frustration and anger as
people cling to that illusion and see their goals fall further away. Sort of
like pulling back on the stick makes the houses get smaller, but only to a
point after which pulling back on the stick makes the houses get bigger really
fast.

The illusion we have created is the progressive income tax. We ignore the whole
concept of imbedded taxes (payroll taxes, corporate and personal income taxes,
and others) which become invisbly imbedded in the price of goods and services,
and those imbedded taxes fall very regressively on the poor.

The result is that the more progressive we make the income tax, the more the
poor fall behind and the greater the separation becomes. It is a hard concept
to wrap your mind around, but it is provably true. We see it happening all
around us every day. The more the Democrats succeed in shifting the income tax
burden to the rich, the greater the gap between rich and poor becomes, and the
history of the last 50 years proves it. I will email a copy of an editorial I
wrote for a local liberal paper explaining the paradox. It is too long to post
here, but I will email a copy to anyone who wants it.

But you can see that when every success becomes a failure, and every defeat
makes things better, the left is going batty as their class warfare fails.

And yes, I do have a solution to the problem.

--
Wm. Donald (Don) Tabor Jr., DDS
PP-ASEL
Chesapeake, VA - CPK, PVG

[Jim Rosinski]

The lack of civility you describe certainly exists all over Usenet, but I
don't think it's such a big deal in the real world. Nor have things changed
that much over generations. And I don't think lack of compromise explains
any of what sucks in the U.S Congress. Here are some anecdotal examples to
support these points. Take them for what you will.

o Remember the heat Dan Burton (senator or congressman from Indiana) took for
calling President Clinton a "scumbag"?

o The History Channel ran a program last night about what led to the duel in
which Aaron Burr killed Alexander Hamilton. Lots of hateful, vindictive, and
back-stabbing rhetoric was behind it, and not just between those two.

o Compromise happens in Congress every day. It often takes the form of
"Vote for my pork-barrel project to give other people's money to my
constituents, and I'll vote for yours".

Compromise as an end in itself, especially when it comes to moral values, is
not a good thing.

Jim Rosinski
N3825Q

"Jay Honeck" > wrote

> Well, that's EXACTLY what compromise is -- and it's been going on in America
> for generations.
>
> If fact, it is this almost unique feature of American political life that
> has enabled our democracy to survive while so many others have perished.
> Our ability to come to terms with our opponents -- as opposed to crushing
> them -- is what makes our democracy work.
>
> At the moment, however, I see very little of this sentiment at the national
> level. It's "my way, or the highway" on a myriad of issues -- and the
> rhetoric is reaching a dangerous volume.
>
> Trouble is, the real "meaty" issues that divide Republicans from Democrats
> (i.e.: Abortion; marriage; stem cell research; the purpose of government;
> taxes; the right to bear arms; religion; etc.) are "black and white" issues,
> with little room for compromise.
>
> I don't think that any of this is new. However, our parents and
> grand-parents were able to keep a lid on these kinds of disagreements by
> maintaining a higher level of courtesy and decorum that has been all but
> lost in America. Today, no one bats an eye at calling someone else "stupid"
> or "immoral" because of what they believe -- and this is a radical change
> that is harming our political system.
>
> This naturally creates hard feelings, making any compromise MUCH more
> difficult to achieve. The end result is political grid-lock, followed by
> increasing frustration amongst the electorate, followed by revolution or
> civil war, if carried to its ultimate conclusion.

[Jon Woellhaf]

Don,

Please email me a copy of the editorial you mentioned in your RAP response
to
Jay Honeck.

Thanks!

Jon

[Jim Weir]

I recall the saying being that if you remember the 60s, you didn't EXPERIENCE
the 60s.

Jim


"Jay Beckman" >
shared these priceless pearls of wisdom:

->"Michael 182" > wrote in message
->news:2FUWc.55248$Fg5.42074@attbi_s53...
->>
->> "Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
->> news:nVTWc.54974$Fg5.20899@attbi_s53...
->>>
->>> And I guess that anyone who wasn't of age in the '60s, really shouldn't
->> say
->>> ANYTHING about that whole screwed up decade, right?
->>
->> Hey, I liked the 60's! At least what I remember of them...
->>
->> Michael
->>
->>
->>
->
->Someone once told me: "If you remember the 60's...then you DON'T remember
->the 60's..."
->
->FWIW...
->
->Jay
->

Jim Weir (A&P/IA, CFI, & other good alphabet soup)
VP Eng RST Pres. Cyberchapter EAA Tech. Counselor
http://www.rst-engr.com

[Michael 182]

"Jim Weir" > wrote in message
...
> I recall the saying being that if you remember the 60s, you didn't
EXPERIENCE
> the 60s.
>
> Jim

And, of course, you remember the saying from the 70's.

Michael

[Bill Denton]

Actually, the original was more succinct: "If you remember the 60s, you
weren't there".




"Jim Weir" > wrote in message
...
> I recall the saying being that if you remember the 60s, you didn't
EXPERIENCE
> the 60s.
>
> Jim
>
>
> "Jay Beckman" >
> shared these priceless pearls of wisdom:
>
> ->"Michael 182" > wrote in message
> ->news:2FUWc.55248$Fg5.42074@attbi_s53...
> ->>
> ->> "Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
> ->> news:nVTWc.54974$Fg5.20899@attbi_s53...
> ->>>
> ->>> And I guess that anyone who wasn't of age in the '60s, really
shouldn't
> ->> say
> ->>> ANYTHING about that whole screwed up decade, right?
> ->>
> ->> Hey, I liked the 60's! At least what I remember of them...
> ->>
> ->> Michael
> ->>
> ->>
> ->>
> ->
> ->Someone once told me: "If you remember the 60's...then you DON'T
remember
> ->the 60's..."
> ->
> ->FWIW...
> ->
> ->Jay
> ->
>
> Jim Weir (A&P/IA, CFI, & other good alphabet soup)
> VP Eng RST Pres. Cyberchapter EAA Tech. Counselor
> http://www.rst-engr.com

[John Gaquin]

"Wdtabor" > wrote in message

> I will email a copy of an editorial I
> wrote

I'd like a copy too, please, Doc. Thanks.

John Gaquin

[Jay Honeck]

>I will email a copy of an editorial I
> wrote for a local liberal paper explaining the paradox. It is too long to
post
> here, but I will email a copy to anyone who wants it.

It's an interesting theory, and there is a lot of truth in it.

However, the part about the "rich getting richer, and the poor getting
poorer, despite the progressive income tax" is wrong.

As a friend of mine at the University of Iowa demonstrated to me today, the
basic premise that the "gap between rich and poor is growing" is easily
disproved with actual government tax data. In fact, the gap has narrowed
substantially.

Which, of course, means that Ted Kennedy, Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, John
Edwards, Tom Vilsack, and all the rest of the Democrats are either sorely
misinformed, or simply lying to get elected.

Shocking, I know....

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

[Frank Ch. Eigler]

"Jay Honeck" wrote:

> [...] As a friend of mine at the University of Iowa demonstrated to
> me today, the basic premise that the "gap between rich and poor is
> growing" is easily disproved with actual government tax data. In
> fact, the gap has narrowed substantially. [...]

Plus the "gap" is not in itself an interesting quantity, if the "poor"
and "rich" standards of living are both increasing, as appears to be
the case.

- FChE

[Charlie Schwartz]

At least they didn't threaten you with grievious bodily harm. During
the 1992 election, I was preflighting my plane at SMO. George I rolled
up by limo to the FBO across the field unnanounced and was preparing
to ---eventually--- leave by helicopter. The Secret Service came along
the ramp and informed each person to get in his or her airplane, close
the windows and not open them. The penalty for opening the airplane's
window was to be shot by the snipers around the field - at least
according to the agent (who was openly armed). So, for 20 minutes on
the 80+ degree afternoon, my family and I were forced to sit in a
Cessna 182 with the windows closed while King George did whatever he
was doing out of sight in a building that was across 2 wide ramps, two
taxi ways, and a 150 foot wide runway from where we were sitting --
all under penalty of summary execution.

On Sun, 22 Aug 2004 13:25:41 UTC, "Jay Honeck"
> wrote:

> After living in Iowa for the last 7 years, it seemed that we were the only
> ones left who had NOT been to the "Great Iowa State Fair." This year is
> the 150th anniversary of this grand old tradition, so last weekend we
> decided to check it out.

[Tom S.]

"Charlie Schwartz" > wrote in message
...
> At least they didn't threaten you with grievious bodily harm. During
> the 1992 election, I was preflighting my plane at SMO. George I rolled
> up by limo to the FBO across the field unnanounced and was preparing
> to ---eventually--- leave by helicopter. The Secret Service came along
> the ramp and informed each person to get in his or her airplane, close
> the windows and not open them. The penalty for opening the airplane's
> window was to be shot by the snipers around the field - at least
> according to the agent (who was openly armed). So, for 20 minutes on
> the 80+ degree afternoon, my family and I were forced to sit in a
> Cessna 182 with the windows closed while King George did whatever he
> was doing out of sight in a building that was across 2 wide ramps, two
> taxi ways, and a 150 foot wide runway from where we were sitting --
> all under penalty of summary execution.

Yeah, sure!

[Mackfly]

>From: "Charlie Schwartz"

> So, for 20 minutes on
>the 80+ degree afternoon, my family and I were forced to sit in a
>Cessna 182 with the windows closed while King George did whatever he
>was doing

Oh my that must of hurt---not near as nice as working on the flight line in
106 degree TX summers or 25 below zero on Grissom AFB or the 7 days living in
the alert pad baby sitting a plane with 5 nukes on board. Also not as much fun
as watching the cockpit temp. peg the gauge at 120 degrees F and knowing it was
not even getting hot yet as you ran a pressure check in the Philippines on a
C-140A I'm darn glad you did your part to protect our freedom. Take pride in
your suffering like that for 20 whole minutes. Mac USAF ret.

[Charlie Schwartz]

You may not believe it, but it did happen. I doubt they would have
actually shot anyone, but it was mindboggling that they would make the
threat.

On Wed, 1 Sep 2004 03:39:00 UTC, "Tom S." > wrote:

>
> "Charlie Schwartz" > wrote in message
> ...
> > At least they didn't threaten you with grievious bodily harm. During
> > the 1992 election, I was preflighting my plane at SMO. George I rolled
> > up by limo to the FBO across the field unnanounced and was preparing
> > to ---eventually--- leave by helicopter. The Secret Service came along
> > the ramp and informed each person to get in his or her airplane, close
> > the windows and not open them. The penalty for opening the airplane's
> > window was to be shot by the snipers around the field - at least
> > according to the agent (who was openly armed). So, for 20 minutes on
> > the 80+ degree afternoon, my family and I were forced to sit in a
> > Cessna 182 with the windows closed while King George did whatever he
> > was doing out of sight in a building that was across 2 wide ramps, two
> > taxi ways, and a 150 foot wide runway from where we were sitting --
> > all under penalty of summary execution.
>
> Yeah, sure!
>
>


--
___________________________

Charlie Schwartz