Leaving the community

"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

. . . 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

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

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

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 -

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

"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.

"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.