Leaving the community

On Thu, 04 Nov 2004 12:27:25 -0600, Frank wrote:

Jay Beckman wrote:



Giuliani-Rice might work, but howzabout Colin Powell - Elizabeth Dole?

Either ticket would probably make the loyal oppositon's heads explode.

I would never vote for Bush but I have nothing but respect for Colin Powell,
he is the best asset this administration has (had?). If Powell had led the
ticket in 2000 I doubt it would have been even remotely close.

I had (past tense) great respect for Colin Powell and was pleased when
he became secretary of state. My respect for him was lost when he
became the lapdog of the administration and was not allowed to
function as anything other than a conduit for policies that he did not
believe in. If he had resigned, and maintained his integrity I would
still respect him. I was often embarrassed for him and he should have
been embarrassed for himself.
Rich Russell

. . . I can no longer in good faith keep company with a group of
which the majority, I
know, has elected to deliver the country I love . . .

I always understood that this group was international.

Tony

Exactly. "Well regulated" back then meant "well trained" .. trained in
the use of firearms... not regulated by government laws. If they felt like
more laws and regulations would enhance the "security of a free state"
then they would have created a bunch of laws right then and there.


Wizard of Draws wrote:

Your interpretation of "well-regulated" has been the subject of many
debates, and is very likely wrong. Google the term a bit and you'll see what
I mean.

Peter Duniho wrote:

"Frank" wrote in message ...
I would never vote for Bush but I have nothing but respect for Colin
Powell

Are you talking about the same Colin Powell that got in front of the UN
and swore up and down that he had incontrovertible evidence of weapons of
mass destruction in Iraq?

he is the best asset this administration has (had?).

That's probably true. Damning with faint praise though.

Pete

It certainly was not his best moment and it did indeed diminish is stature
somewhat. But the circumstances at the time backed him into a corner.

I am willing to cut him a little slack because I believe he thought by doing
the UN thing he could regain some influence and head off some of the other
disasters he saw looming. Too bad he was wrong.


--
Frank....H

Howard Nelson wrote:

After all, how do you bribe a wealthy man?

snip
--
Frank....H

With unbridled power. And if that doesn't frighten you then what will?
Until the democrats get out of the business of promoting a nanny state
they probably will stay out of power.

I think an interesting question is why the majority of major urban areas
are "blue" and the remainder of the country is "red". Any thoughts? Are
the
people in the "blue" areas: Smarter? More Dependent? More Caring?
Need more services?

Howard


Not smarter but more "worldly". I'm not trying to insult anyone here. Some
of my closest friends live in rural areas. Some of those have never
traveled more that 100 miles from home. They see things very differently
than their neighbor whose job takes him all over the country (and once in a
while overseas).

More caring only in the sense that they see the plight of the poor first
hand and therefore it is more tangible to them. Rural "reds" have been led
to believe that people are poor solely because they are lazy. If they had
to come face to face with the realities they would care just as much.

Sometimes more services are needed to compensate for problems unique to
urban life. For the disadvantaged I suppose this can translate into 'more
dependent.

The biggest difference I see today is in attitude. "Reds" seem to have one
of "I've got mine, you get yours" while the "blues" is more like "We have
so much, we should try to make life better for the less fortunate".

--
Frank....H

Dave Stadt wrote:


"Frank" wrote in message ...
John T wrote:

snip

And while we're on the subject of Kerry's (Theresa's) wealth.... I will
never understand why this was seen as such a negative. He came upon it
honorably. More important, it insulates him from some of the special
interest pressure. After all, how do you bribe a wealthy man?

The same way you bribe a poor man.

I wasn't suggesting you couldn't bribe a rich man, just that since he
doesn't need the money as much he will be more inclined to do the right
thing.


--
Frank....H

John T wrote:

"Frank" wrote in message

In fact he was, in effect, advocating raising his own taxes.

Nothing is preventing him from paying more, if that's what he wants. I
recommend he start by giving more money to charities.

And while we're on the subject of Kerry's (Theresa's) wealth.... I
will never understand why this was seen as such a negative.

I don't begrudge his wealth at all. I do find it difficult to believe
that
*the* richest man in the US Congress is looking out for "the common man."
I
doubt he really understands the "common man's" experience. What we need
is more "common men" in Congress looking out for the "common man."


I agree that would be preferable. However our current system all but
precludes that from happening.

How much money someone has does not determine if he will serve the people
well or not. In our system (as currently implemented) wealth does allow for
the possibility for one to forego the usual role of whore to lobbyists.


--
Frank....H

In article ,
David Brooks wrote:
So long. Thanks for all the conversations. You guys have made me a
better pilot.

If you want to enact change, you can't run away.

I'm in a rather strange political group, as none of the parties really
make sense to me. I believe in very wide personal liberty and equal
rights. Gays should be able to get married, people should be able to
own big scary guns as long as they don't shoot people with them, and
women should be able to choose what to do with their bodies.

I believe religious issues should not enter government at all, because
that is the only way to keep from legislating that religion's beliefs
over the common good. I wish it was stated in the Constitution that the
U.S. is a secular state that nevertheless welcomes its population to
hold whatever religious beliefs they wish.

However, I don't believe the Libertarian party isn't really a good fit
for me, because I don't believe that competitive pressure is enough to
keep businesses from doing anything they want to maximize their profit.
Somehow they need to be held accountable to certain social standards
(much like people are), and it has been quite obvious that the
population at large will not punish a company violating these standards
by not buying their stuff.

I don't know what this makes me - Libertarian, Green, Democrat, stinking
Liberal, perhaps a Commie Mutant Traitor? Definitely not a Republican
as that party currently stands.

I abhorred Bush and his policies, so I didn't vote for him. A lot of
people disagreed with me. While I think that's disappointing, storming
out isn't going to fix anything.

So if you want change, you need to work at it. Talk calmly and
rationally, and preferably face-to-face, with people who disagree with
you. Maybe you'll be able to convince them of some of your viewpoints.
(Maybe they'll be able to convince you of some of theirs!) Maybe if
enough people do this things will be different in two/four years.

But don't do it on this forum. My advice: when you see the beginnings
of a political or religious scuffle, do what I should have done instead
of writing all this - kill the subthread, move on with life.

-bcd
--
*** Brian Downing bdowning at lavos dot net

In article wBTid.1877$5K2.15@attbi_s03,
Brian Downing wrote:
However, I don't believe the Libertarian party isn't really a good fit
for me

"is really a good fit" is what I meant obviously.

Way to be double negative.

-bcd

John T wrote:

"Greg Butler" wrote in message


This is a prime example of the ignorance of so many people. The exit
polls on election day were actually amazingly accurate. What many
people like you should learn before you start spouting off is what
actually happened. Results from the exit polls was leaked before the
polls were complete, i.e. around 3 or 4 pm, before the polls were
closed.


No, it's not "spouting off." Those exit polls are what are routinely
released to various news outlets *during* the polling. If it were a matter
of waiting until the polls closed, there'd be little value to an exit poll
since the ballots would soon be counted, anyway.


To me the concept of an exit poll is asinine. What difference does it
make? Just count the votes.


Matt