Leaving the community

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. :-)

"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

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"

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.

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.

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"

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

"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)

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