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 |
#111
|
|||
|
|||
On Wed, 3 Nov 2004 17:44:52 -0500, "Icebound"
wrote: "C Kingsbury" wrote in message ink.net... "Jay Honeck" wrote in message news:k_bid.351511$MQ5.252777@attbi_s52... ...snip... The moral for the Democrats: Don't ever nominate an ultra liberal to run for president again. Hillary Clinton. ...snip... My dream team is Giuliani-Rice. ...snip... It would be interesting to see if the (conservative) country is ready for a Woman in the White House, or even in the position of "heartbeat away". That's kind of a "liberal" concept, isn't it???... This is a sad comment to make in the greatest country in the world, but my sense is that any party that nominates a woman for president or vice-president has conceded the election before it starts. For reasons that I cannot fathom, this country is not even close to being ready for that scenario. We'll accept female governors, supreme court justices, CEO's, etc, but not president or vp. We are way behind the rest of the world in that regard. Rich Russell |
#112
|
|||
|
|||
To say that "Denying sexually aberrant citizens 'marital' status is akin
to human rights abuses endured by black Americans" is an affront to my, and your, intelligence. Well put, Jim. Black Americans are not comfortable with this comparison, as you state. In fact, NPR recently did a piece on the "black vote" and discovered a larger than ever percentage of blacks voting Republican, precisely because of this issue. -- Jay Honeck Iowa City, IA Pathfinder N56993 www.AlexisParkInn.com "Your Aviation Destination" |
#113
|
|||
|
|||
This is a sad comment to make in the greatest country in the world,
but my sense is that any party that nominates a woman for president or vice-president has conceded the election before it starts. I disagree. I think America is MORE than ready to elect a conservative Republican woman president/vice-president. But Hillary? Never. She polarizes everyone she meets -- there is no middle ground with her, in large part due to her husband's "legacy." It's kind of a shame, cuz she's a bright woman in many ways. -- Jay Honeck Iowa City, IA Pathfinder N56993 www.AlexisParkInn.com "Your Aviation Destination" |
#114
|
|||
|
|||
Actually, no. The 2nd amendment says "arms". Doesn't mention firearms at
all. So you can have swords, spears, bows and arrows :-) Even if it's assumed that firearms were intended (and I believe they were), the founding fathers were thinking of the arms of the time. I have no problem with anyone owning and bearing all the muzzle loading flintlocks they want. I'll even concede percussion-cap muzzle-loaders and paper cartridge breach-loaders, but no one NEEDs to own an assault rifle or machine gun for personal use. Uncle supplies those free of charge for the military, which is now the militia the framers intended; we no longer need an civilian one. -- Bob (Chief Pilot, White Knuckle Airways) I don't have to like Bush and Cheney (Or Kerry, for that matter) to love America "Richard Hertz" no one@no one.com wrote in message et... Please, the 2nd ammendment says I have the right to firearms, not just the ones that some folks say are ok. |
#115
|
|||
|
|||
And I tend to be a true liberal......If you ain't hurting anyone and
want to do it, go for it. Wanna own a full auto assault weapon, fine. Just don't murder anyone. (I do and I haven't) Wanna fly, don't fly into a building with 500 lbs of TNT. (I do and I don't) Have a cigarette!.... Chug a bottle of Jack Daniels!.... Smoke a joint!... Shoot some heroin!..... No Problem, but I don't WANT to pay for your rehab. Wanna drive 150 mph, don't crash into a school bus. Gay......Keep your f**kin' hands off my ass. Etc. Etc. Etc. "I want" has made this a great country. A true liberal hates all regulation of anything that does not directly, and absolutely, hurt anyone. Owning a Howitzer hurts nobody, lobbing a shell into a neighbors house does. Actually you just described a true "Libertarian". www.lp.org |
#116
|
|||
|
|||
Howard Nelson wrote:
Ya know. I think David actually left. Not a bad troll through muddy waters however. IMO the election was a contest between the people pulling the wagon and the people riding in the wagon. Luckily 51% of the people were pulling the wagon so it will probably keep moving (perfect wagon with no losses to friction etc.). Once 51% or greater are riding in the wagon then it will only move downhill. Howard --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.788 / Virus Database: 533 - Release Date: 11/1/2004 What do you base this on? If we analyze the tax receipts of states who voted for W and the ones that voted for Kerry, we'll see that those darn Kerry supportin' states are sitting in the wagon waiting for us to pull them along while generating the VAST MAJORITY of taxes! I haven't done an analysis for this year yet (obviously, since the year isn't over and the data isn't there yet) but I do have the numbers for the 2000 contest. Since we had essentially the same red/blue map, this is still telling. The bottom line? Total tax receipts from states that voted for each candidate, in $millions: Go $1,202,891,545 Bush: $873,151,976 SOURCE: 2000 IRS Data Book, Publication 55b. Also Chief Financial Officer, Revenue Accounting, Office of Revenue Systems N:CFO:R. Who's pulling the cart? I have the excel sheet if you'd like to dig in yourself. What amazes me is that the people in the red states simply haven't realized how much they are shooting themselves in the foot by supporting Bush's tax cuts. Most of that money stayed in the blue states! Unless the people in the red states really think that the money is distributed according to contribution, they should be careful what they wish for when they want to "get the gubmint off our back". If the gubmint does this, they're going to need to provide a hell of a lot more faith based social services than they are right now. There will be a lot of destitute farmers, and the suburbanites will NOT like the state of their highway systems. The urban folks will have even crappier schools and rising crime rates. But the gubmint won't be on their backs! It irks me when I hear that this election was decided on values and morals, suggesting that Bush has a monopoly on morality. In fact, I argue that the majority of people in the blue states hold moral values that make financing social programs that improve the poor's situation more important than lower taxes. They hold moral values that recognize honesty with the American people on issues of war and peace to be important. They also hold moral values that place civil rights and due process in our justice system to be sacred. All moral choices that the president doesn't agree with me and about half the people that voted. I am a left leaning centrist on social issues and consider myself to be a fiscal conservative. When a Republican president irritates me this much, I really am concerned for the country. After this election there won't be much in terms of a moderating political force, and historically that can lead to some pretty hairy situation. -Aviv |
#117
|
|||
|
|||
Oh yeah, I remember photo shoots of Bill Clinton's "hunting trip"
also... in a futile attempt to convince people that he was a "hunter'. The fact is that the 2nd amendment has nothing to do with hunting. It does not enumerate a "right to hunt". Cecil Chapman wrote: Guns He's a hunter, I'm pretty sure they use guns for that (he's not a bowhunter). |
#118
|
|||
|
|||
"Martin Hotze" wrote in message ... [x-posting deleted] "C Kingsbury" wrote: Still, I've managed to become and remain friends with quite a few of these people because I realize that they're not actually bad people, just misguided. ^^^^^^^^^^ so they need to pray for their sins? or what? how do you come to the conclusion that they are misguided? and why are they misguided? Example: Social Security reform. They think people like me want to privatize Social Security because we're greedy rich white men trying to screw the poor yet again. Then I explain how said privatization actually has its greatest potential net benefits for lower-class blacks, who the current system screws terribly much of the time. Much of the time the argument then shifts from "You're evil" to "But that can't possibly work and here's why." The first argument is pointless and stupid. The second is politics, and offers a chance to find common ground. -cwk. |
#119
|
|||
|
|||
Bob Chilcoat wrote:
I'll even concede percussion-cap muzzle-loaders and paper cartridge breach-loaders, but no one NEEDs to own an assault rifle or machine gun for personal use. Then to apply your logic to aviation "no one NEEDs to own an airplane or or especially a restored military aircraft for personal use." The problem with liberals is that they *say* they are for choice and have the patent on tolerance. That's only true as long as the opposing views do not conflict with their own. As a free individual I will be the one to determine what my "needs" are, and not anyone else. This is one of ther many fundamental differences between liberals and conservatives. If you look up the definition of "fascist" you will see that is closely describes the philosophy of the Democratic party. |
#120
|
|||
|
|||
Then we should require everyone who enters a theater to apply duct tape to
their mouths *in case* some tries to yell "fire". Liberals always use that argument... except that to make an honest analogy to restrictions on the 2nd amendment (Vs. the 1st) they would require everyone who enters a theater to apply duct tape to their mouths *just in case* someone tried to yell "fire". Martin Hotze wrote: So then walk into a crowded theater and shout "fire". Then let's check your right to free speech again. :-) #m |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Leaving the community | David Brooks | Instrument Flight Rules | 556 | November 30th 04 08:08 PM |
aero-domains for anybody in the aviation community | secura | Aviation Marketplace | 1 | June 26th 04 07:37 PM |
Unruly Passengers | SelwayKid | Piloting | 88 | June 5th 04 08:35 AM |
Report Leaving Assigned Altitude? | John Clonts | Instrument Flight Rules | 81 | March 20th 04 02:34 PM |
Big Kahunas | Jay Honeck | Piloting | 360 | December 20th 03 12:59 AM |