Leaving the community

He's opposed to private ownership of any firearm except shotguns plugged
to three
shells. And just where in the Constitution exactly is hunting mentioned?
He prattles
about "military-style assault weapons" while trying to ban
semi-automatics, knowing
full well that no military-style assault weapon is semi-automatic.

Have you actually read his voting record and what types of weapons each
respective legislation was referring to? Evidently, not!

--
--
=-----
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 -

I have the right to own and fire my Mauser, and, as far as I'm concerned,
that
includes the right to be allowed to buy ammunition for it. Kerry tried to
ban that,

I almost forgot,,,,what for goodness sake do you need to be firing
ammunition as large as the type that the Mauser uses? Are the deer BIGGER
where you live,,, home protection, if that's what you are thinking, favors a
shotgun (that's per some cop friends, who would know).

But PLEASE tell me that you aren't one of those crazies that thinks that if
the "government takes over" its' citizens, you are going to be there like
Rambo to prevent it - if that's it,,, don't want to have to tell ya bub, but
you'll be easily outgunned and outmanned and be planted in the ground in
your tracks, faster than you can blink.

Then there are the Freudian possibilities regarding the subconscious need to
have BIG cartridges grin

--
--
=-----
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 -

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.

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.

"Bob Chilcoat" wrote in message -
Yet again, I had to vote AGAINST a
candidate, rather than FOR one.

Many people didn't vote for Bush as much as they voted against Edwards.
Having a trial lawyer a heartbeat away from the presidency was the greater
evil for many voters. As I recall, it was trial lawyers that managed to wipe
out piston-engine airplane production for over a decade.

D.

Capt.Doug ) wrote:

Many people didn't vote for Bush as much as they voted against Edwards.
Having a trial lawyer a heartbeat away from the presidency was the greater
evil for many voters. As I recall, it was trial lawyers that managed to wipe
out piston-engine airplane production for over a decade.

Amen to that.

--
Peter

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.

"Cecil Chapman" wrote in message
m...
I have the right to own and fire my Mauser, and, as far as I'm concerned,
that
includes the right to be allowed to buy ammunition for it. Kerry tried to
ban that,

I almost forgot,,,,what for goodness sake do you need to be firing
ammunition as large as the type that the Mauser uses? Are the deer BIGGER
where you live,,, home protection, if that's what you are thinking, favors
a shotgun (that's per some cop friends, who would know).

But PLEASE tell me that you aren't one of those crazies that thinks that
if the "government takes over" its' citizens, you are going to be there
like Rambo to prevent it - if that's it,,, don't want to have to tell ya
bub, but you'll be easily outgunned and outmanned and be planted in the
ground in your tracks, faster than you can blink.

Then there are the Freudian possibilities regarding the subconscious need
to have BIG cartridges grin


Please, the 2nd ammendment says I have the right to firearms, not just the
ones that some folks say are ok.



--
--
=-----
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 -

"kontiki" wrote in message
...
Trent Moorehead wrote:
.... I used to think that Democrats were the type of people
who were accepting of others, but I have seen over the last few years
that
they are not. I am a Democrat, but I voted for Bush. He's not perfect,
but
at least he's not a hypocrite.

The liberal democrats I have direct experience with always boast that they
are so tolerant and so pro-choice. This only applies to choice in
abortions
however, and they do NOT approve of choice when it comes to the following:

1) choice in whether or not someone desirec to own firearms (they are
against that)
2) choice in education... they are against anything other than mandatory
public schools
3) choice in placing your FICA taxes into anything other than the social
[in]security
4) choice in health care... they ultimately want the government in charge
of all health care options.

I could mention more but what stir up the natives.



Great response!

"Cecil Chapman" wrote in message
...
Awww David, hang around! Lots of good stuff to be learned here. I've
lived on the earth long enough to recognize that living amongst
Cro-Magnons can be amusing. Yeah, they unfortunately have the right to
vote,,,, but they make a few grunts and run in the wall a few times and
next thing we know, they are running back to 'us' for advice and help.

I, too, am worried about the direction the country will take. For
instance, I never thought I'd see the day that something like the "Patriot
Act" would be put into place. Whenever we strip away the very core
constitutional rights of our people, we do a great harm to our nation and
allow the terrorists to exact an even more telling blow on our country.
Fortunately, there are enough men and women of reason who have actively
gone after things like the Patriot Act, aiding in disabling its' most
sinister provisions. It will be men and women of reason and good
conscience that will bring things around, again. I DO believe Kerry was
one of those people, but thankfully there are many like him - congressmen
and women that won't allow those precious and hard-fought-for documents to
be attacked at their very heart; The Constitution of The United States and
The Bill of Rights - never EVER letting us forget that our Constitution
begins with those words; "WE, the people......"

Like the second ammendment?


Though I can't say I believe in a divine being or UFO's (so, in my
opinion, we can't depend on extraterrestrials to help us, either) grin,
I can say that I have always believed that in times of dire circumstance
that people of good conscience will always overcome, persevere and
succeed - even when things look to be their darkest. This country will
have it's time to shine, again! :0) I believe that with all my heart!
You should too!!!

Stay with us! :O)

--
--
=-----
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 -