If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
"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. :-) |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
"C J Campbell" wrote in message ... "Cecil Chapman" wrote in message m... Unlike the man whose words you mouth, Kerry didn't pull special favors to get into the National Guard to avoid the draft (he VOLUNTEERED for duty), Kerry, by his own admission, volunteered for the Navy RESERVE...SPECIFICALLY to avoid duty in SEA. Bush volunteered for duty, too, and was subject to being sent to SEA. He also volunteered for rather hazardous duty...duty that was patently hazardous even if he never left Texas, much less tha US. He also volunteered for duty in VietNam, but was turned down. In the same vien, Kerry was sent to the Swift Boats, not voluntarily, but becasue he was a pain in ths ass "Sea Lawyer" (the Navy equivalent of a civilian "****house lawyer") and his commander wated his off his ship. Unlike Kerry, he did not incite the enemy to abuse prisoners of war, commit war crimes, or make false claims that everyone else in SEA was committing war crimes. And that says a lot, even aside from his overt acts of treason. That is why there are still serious question that his first discharge was "less than honorable". Of course, his massively hypocritical hiding his record (why?) can only fuel the question. -- Matt --------------------- Matthew W. Barrow Site-Fill Homes, LLC. Montrose, CO |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
The problem isn't so much that he is too far left, Kerry is simply
unlikable. The republicans often have a similiar problem in CA, the only candidates that can win the nomination are too far right to win the election Mike MU-2 "Jay Honeck" wrote in message news:k_bid.351511$MQ5.252777@attbi_s52... These people are mad Kerry didn't run a liberal campaign and can't stand that he "was just as pro-war as Bush." That is SO ironic. If the Democrats has nominated a middle-of-the-road guy to run against Bush -- say, Dick Gephardt -- this election would not have even been close. The Democrats would have swept the nation, and never by less than 25 percentage points. Stupidly, they nominated a guy whose political positions were to the left of Ted Kennedy's, absolutely ensuring a Bush victory. There were many traditional Republicans out here -- myself included -- who would have voted for a conservative Democrat in this election. But there was just no way for any of us to vote for a guy like Kerry. The moral for the Democrats: Don't ever nominate an ultra liberal to run for president again. -- Jay Honeck Iowa City, IA Pathfinder N56993 www.AlexisParkInn.com "Your Aviation Destination" |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
I'm not sure I agree... I think Gephardt lost out because of nothing
short of a lack of charisma. I don't think people were paying that much attention to positions or character during the primaries, and there were way too many people on the list to go very deep. But if he wasn't charismatic enough to beat Kerry on the Primaries, I'm not sure he would have had what it took to beat Bush either. After all, Gore lost on charisma too. I think where Kerry blew it worst is that he never really recovered from the whole "flip-flop" persona. He had opportunities to. But basically, his only comeback was to say that he misspoke when he talked about "voting for it before voting against it." From a public perception, he was saying that he made a mistake by poorly describing his flip-flopping, but never actually addressed the issue of flip-flopping itself. He didn't focus (as I think he should have) on the reality that sometimes it is better to change your opinion in light of new facts than to hold firm to a lie. He could have very easily turned the whole thing around and put Bush in a defensive position - either the President of the United States had the wool pulled over his eyes by his own intelligence agency and is incompetent, or he had hidden motives and went into Iraq based on a lie and pulled the wool over the eyes of the American people and is undeserving. Instead, he left his own trustworthiness unaddressed, and the public just didn't trust him. It didn't help, either, that he constantly spoke about how he had a "better plan" for Iraq, but never really qualified that with what the plan was... Basically it left his credibility completely in question. Either way, I think this is a much more serious issue than stem cell research, or Gay Marraige. I strongly suspect that what the news media is labelling "Moral Values" is not about the latter issues nearly as much as about just general credibility. I guess liberals like me prefer to give Kerry a chance, rather than let Bush go on pulling the wool over our eyes (or allowing it to be pulled over our eyes by his staff). Where conservatives would rather have someone they are comfortable with in office than give the new, unpredictable guy a chance, especially if he has shown he might not be perfect either. No, I think the biggest problem in this election was simply that there was not much difference at all between the two candidates, or if there was, it was so clouded by nonessential issues that the general public was left to vote on whether they are more comfortable with or without change, and not much else. "Jay Honeck" wrote in news:k_bid.351511$MQ5.252777@attbi_s52: These people are mad Kerry didn't run a liberal campaign and can't stand that he "was just as pro-war as Bush." That is SO ironic. If the Democrats has nominated a middle-of-the-road guy to run against Bush -- say, Dick Gephardt -- this election would not have even been close. The Democrats would have swept the nation, and never by less than 25 percentage points. Stupidly, they nominated a guy whose political positions were to the left of Ted Kennedy's, absolutely ensuring a Bush victory. There were many traditional Republicans out here -- myself included -- who would have voted for a conservative Democrat in this election. But there was just no way for any of us to vote for a guy like Kerry. The moral for the Democrats: Don't ever nominate an ultra liberal to run for president again. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Actually, come to think of it, where Kerry really went wrong was by taking
all of the spotlight away from Edwards after the "pat on the ass" incident. Had he plastered Edwards' face on the front of the ticket prominently next to his, he would have gotten more of the women and gay men to come out and vote for him - enough to win several of those borderline states! Judah wrote in : I'm not sure I agree... I think Gephardt lost out because of nothing short of a lack of charisma. I don't think people were paying that much attention to positions or character during the primaries, and there were way too many people on the list to go very deep. But if he wasn't charismatic enough to beat Kerry on the Primaries, I'm not sure he would have had what it took to beat Bush either. After all, Gore lost on charisma too. I think where Kerry blew it worst is that he never really recovered from the whole "flip-flop" persona. He had opportunities to. But basically, his only comeback was to say that he misspoke when he talked about "voting for it before voting against it." From a public perception, he was saying that he made a mistake by poorly describing his flip-flopping, but never actually addressed the issue of flip-flopping itself. He didn't focus (as I think he should have) on the reality that sometimes it is better to change your opinion in light of new facts than to hold firm to a lie. He could have very easily turned the whole thing around and put Bush in a defensive position - either the President of the United States had the wool pulled over his eyes by his own intelligence agency and is incompetent, or he had hidden motives and went into Iraq based on a lie and pulled the wool over the eyes of the American people and is undeserving. Instead, he left his own trustworthiness unaddressed, and the public just didn't trust him. It didn't help, either, that he constantly spoke about how he had a "better plan" for Iraq, but never really qualified that with what the plan was... Basically it left his credibility completely in question. Either way, I think this is a much more serious issue than stem cell research, or Gay Marraige. I strongly suspect that what the news media is labelling "Moral Values" is not about the latter issues nearly as much as about just general credibility. I guess liberals like me prefer to give Kerry a chance, rather than let Bush go on pulling the wool over our eyes (or allowing it to be pulled over our eyes by his staff). Where conservatives would rather have someone they are comfortable with in office than give the new, unpredictable guy a chance, especially if he has shown he might not be perfect either. No, I think the biggest problem in this election was simply that there was not much difference at all between the two candidates, or if there was, it was so clouded by nonessential issues that the general public was left to vote on whether they are more comfortable with or without change, and not much else. "Jay Honeck" wrote in news:k_bid.351511$MQ5.252777@attbi_s52: These people are mad Kerry didn't run a liberal campaign and can't stand that he "was just as pro-war as Bush." That is SO ironic. If the Democrats has nominated a middle-of-the-road guy to run against Bush -- say, Dick Gephardt -- this election would not have even been close. The Democrats would have swept the nation, and never by less than 25 percentage points. Stupidly, they nominated a guy whose political positions were to the left of Ted Kennedy's, absolutely ensuring a Bush victory. There were many traditional Republicans out here -- myself included -- who would have voted for a conservative Democrat in this election. But there was just no way for any of us to vote for a guy like Kerry. The moral for the Democrats: Don't ever nominate an ultra liberal to run for president again. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
I'm not sure I agree... I think Gephardt lost out because of nothing
short of a lack of charisma. I don't think people were paying that much attention to positions or character during the primaries, and there were way too many people on the list to go very deep. But if he wasn't charismatic enough to beat Kerry on the Primaries, I'm not sure he would have had what it took to beat Bush either. After all, Gore lost on charisma too. I agree with you there, but it's my belief that Bush was ideologically vulnerable, and that a guy closer to the center (ala Gebhardt) would have at least grabbed enough of the popular vote (and people like me, who weren't 100% enthused with Bush) to have tipped the scales his way. But we'll never really know... The Democrats simply have to figure out a way to select their nominees better, if they ever want to win the presidency. They've got to find someone who hones closer to the beliefs of mainstream America, without alienating their huge (and incredibly vocal) left wing. The Republicans have figured this out -- I'm surprised the Democrats haven't. If anything, they seem to be learning precisely the wrong lesson from this loss, blaming Kerry for not being "Democrat" enough. This seems ludicrous, given the mood of the nation (at least outside of the big cities), and how diametrically opposed Kerry's positions were to what most Americans want and believe. Mark my words: If they nominate Hillary next time around -- as they appear to be angling toward -- it will set the Democratic Party back 50 years. They won't see the White House again in our lifetime. And now, back to flying! -- Jay Honeck Iowa City, IA Pathfinder N56993 www.AlexisParkInn.com "Your Aviation Destination" |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
In rec.aviation.piloting Jay Honeck wrote:
I agree with you there, but it's my belief that Bush was ideologically vulnerable, and that a guy closer to the center (ala Gebhardt) would have at least grabbed enough of the popular vote (and people like me, who weren't 100% enthused with Bush) to have tipped the scales his way. I agree, but Gebhardt was never gonna be the answer. He's way too boring. He has no carisma. There was no way he would have been able to win. The Democrats simply have to figure out a way to select their nominees better, if they ever want to win the presidency. They've got to find someone who hones closer to the beliefs of mainstream America, without alienating their huge (and incredibly vocal) left wing. The Republicans have figured this out -- I'm surprised the Democrats haven't. The problem is that the "Party" (ie, the party leadership) doesn't neccessarily pick the nominee. A group of individuals decide to run, and then the primaries pick the nominee. --- Jay -- __!__ Jay and Teresa Masino ___(_)___ http://www2.ari.net/jmasino ! ! ! http://www.oceancityairport.com http://www.oc-adolfos.com |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
"Jay Honeck" wrote in message news:K7iid.294493$wV.71039@attbi_s54...
I agree with you there, but it's my belief that Bush was ideologically vulnerable, and that a guy closer to the center (ala Gebhardt) would have at least grabbed enough of the popular vote (and people like me, who weren't 100% enthused with Bush) to have tipped the scales his way. If either party is able to nominate a centerist, they have an excellent shot at the presidency. The problem is that both parties are largely influenced by their more extreme factions. In the primary system, these folks are the ones who have the most influence (and money) to determine who will ultimately represent their party. Also, look at the difference in voter participation between primaries and general elections. You know that the hard-core left and right is going to participate, but I'll wager that the center is under-represented at that stage. What you end up with in a general election is usually a choice between the least scary of two extremes. In this past election, a strong centerist candiate (from either party) would have resulted in a landslide, rather that what we got. John Galban=====N4BQ (PA28-180) |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Jay Honeck wrote:
Mark my words: If they nominate Hillary next time around -- as they appear to be angling toward -- it will set the Democratic Party back 50 years. They won't see the White House again in our lifetime. And now, back to flying! I agree on both counts! Now if it just wasn't so cold here in PA already. Matt |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Report Leaving Assigned Altitude? | John Clonts | Instrument Flight Rules | 81 | March 20th 04 02:34 PM |