Leaving the community

"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."

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

Hillary Clinton.

With Barack Obama for VP, of course. Too soon for him to run for Prez. but
he's going to get there sooner or later unless he has an intern problem.

2008 will be a slugfest extraordinaire. First in 50 years that you'll have a
completely open race with neither an incumbent nor VP on either ticket.

My dream team is Giuliani-Rice. Not likely to happen but the Red Sox weren't
supposed to beat the Yankees after being down 0-3 either. That team could
put nearly the entire country in play.

-cwk.

"C Kingsbury" wrote in message
nk.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???...

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

Icebound wrote:


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???...


Some liberals may like to think that they are more progressive than
conservatives because they want to see a woman president. But
regardless of party lines, my take on it is that if you are one of those
people want to see a woman president than you are a sexist. Those that
don't bring it up either are not voicing their oppinion or truely don't
care. And it is those that truely don't care whether the president is
male or female that are the more progressive.

When it comes to racism, sexism, etc., those that are the loudest about
it are those that have the problem. Jesse Jackson for instance is one
of the biggest racists out there and he gets away with it because of his
past and because he is famous. And how do you accuse someone like that
of being what they claim to be against?

"When you obsess about the enemy, you become the enemy."
- May be a quote from Babylon 5, not sure. Great show though.

C Kingsbury wrote:

My dream team is Giuliani-Rice. Not likely to happen but the Red Sox weren't
supposed to beat the Yankees after being down 0-3 either. That team could
put nearly the entire country in play.

Mine is Giuliani-Powell. Nothing against Rice, but I've been impressed
with Powell since he first came on the scene in Desert Storm.


Matt

Matt Whiting wrote:
C Kingsbury wrote:

My dream team is Giuliani-Rice. Not likely to happen but the Red Sox weren't
supposed to beat the Yankees after being down 0-3 either. That team could
put nearly the entire country in play.

Mine is Giuliani-Powell. Nothing against Rice, but I've been impressed
with Powell since he first came on the scene in Desert Storm.

Rice has never had an elected position, so I'm rather apprehensive
about that. As for Powell -- very unlikely as his family is very
much against it, and he's stated it.

On the other hand, if Rehnquist resigns, Sandra Day O'Connor is next
in line for Chief Justice of the Supremes! But as one pundit said today,
she's already got huge power as the swing vote all the time.

I absolutely agree with you, Jay. Yet again, I had to vote AGAINST a
candidate, rather than FOR one. I just thought Kerry was the least-bad
candidate. When Bush opens his mouth, or just looks at the camera, for that
matter, the back of my hair goes up. What thinking individual could vote
FOR this idiot. I guess my version of the least-bad candidate was the same
as only 49.9% of the rest of the country.

Apparently you can fool 50% of the people, but there is always a noise
function.

--
Bob (Chief Pilot, White Knuckle Airways)

I don't have to like Bush and Cheney (Or Kerry, for that matter) to love
America

"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"

Bob Chilcoat wrote:

I absolutely agree with you, Jay. Yet again, I had to vote AGAINST a
candidate, rather than FOR one. I just thought Kerry was the least-bad
candidate. When Bush opens his mouth, or just looks at the camera, for that
matter, the back of my hair goes up. What thinking individual could vote
FOR this idiot. I guess my version of the least-bad candidate was the same
as only 49.9% of the rest of the country.

Apparently you can fool 50% of the people, but there is always a noise
function.

I've often wondered why some people feel the need to insult the intelligence of
their fellow voters who simply do not agree with their world views. Different
people have different experiences in their life, and some people even study
macroeconomics in depth. And the same treatment is given to candidates.
Although he has his moments, everyone knows Bush isn't a great orator, but he
sure isn't an idiot either.

Finally, the notion that somebody can't share in a newsgroup because some other
people in the same group have a different political leaning is reminiscent of
early childhood mentality. Hopefully this person will reconsider, perhaps after
sleeping on it.

"Laura Clayton" wrote in message
...
Apparently you can fool 50% of the people, but there is always a noise
function.

I've often wondered why some people feel the need to insult the
intelligence of their fellow voters who simply do not agree with
their world views.

Actually, according to the Gallup Poll, among Republicans you can fool over
60% of the people.

I can't speak for where Bob's coming from, but the truth remains that for
the most part, people who voted for Bush don't actually have their facts
straight. This is not disputable.

Pete

Laura Clayton wrote:

Bob Chilcoat wrote:

I absolutely agree with you, Jay. Yet again, I had to vote AGAINST a
candidate, rather than FOR one. I just thought Kerry was the least-bad
candidate. When Bush opens his mouth, or just looks at the camera, for
that
matter, the back of my hair goes up. What thinking individual could vote
FOR this idiot. I guess my version of the least-bad candidate was the
same as only 49.9% of the rest of the country.

Apparently you can fool 50% of the people, but there is always a noise
function.

I've often wondered why some people feel the need to insult the
intelligence of
their fellow voters who simply do not agree with their world views.
Different people have different experiences in their life, and some people
even study
macroeconomics in depth. And the same treatment is given to
candidates. Although he has his moments, everyone knows Bush isn't a great
orator, but he sure isn't an idiot either.

I agree it is wrong to insult their intelligence. It is/was very difficult
to make informed decisions given the lack of real journalism available.

But Bush plain old did a bad job and was not held accountable for it. He
bungled Iraq. He pandered to big money special interests. He set new
heights of secrecy in government. But most of all his supporters were
willing to overlook the fact that on 9/12/01 the whole world was with us
and two years later you can hardly find anyone that will talk to us on a
diplomatic level.


--
Frank....H