Leaving the community

"Cecil Chapman" wrote in message
m

But don't let intelligence or logic, pry you away from your blissful
ignorance.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

--
John T
http://tknowlogy.com/TknoFlyer
http://www.pocketgear.com/products_s...veloperid=4415
____________________

*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 -

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!

"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_s...veloperid=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 pictu
http://www.bushsbrain.com/reviews.htm

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!

"Cecil Chapman" wrote in message
m...
Stupidly, they nominated a guy whose political positions were to the
left
of Ted Kennedy's, absolutely ensuring a Bush victory.

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

The moral for the Democrats: Don't ever nominate an ultra liberal to
run
for president again.

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

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

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





"Cecil Chapman" wrote in
m:

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

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

The moral for the Democrats: Don't ever nominate an ultra liberal to
run for president again.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

"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. :-)