Leaving the community

John T wrote:

"Cecil Chapman" wrote in message
m

snip

Good point,,, you're right Kerry was clearly against tax breaks for
the wealthy, the group that Bush was caught referring to during a
private dinner that was videotaped and to whom he referred to as "My
own people" ---- Got that right, W. Thank goodness there was
someone looking out for the common man (and still is,,,, as a
Senator) as John Kerry.

Sorry, but you lose points on this issue. Kerry, *the* richest person in
Congress, paid less in 2003 taxes (both in percentage and in raw dollars)
than Bush (whose net worth is a fraction of Kerry's). Feel free to Google
for their 2003 tax returns and do the math. While you're at it, notice
the difference in charitable donations, too.

And clearly stated that he was against the tax cuts even though he benefited
from them. In fact he was, in effect, advocating raising his own taxes.

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?

snip
--
Frank....H

"Brien K. Meehan" wrote in message
oups.com...
Don't forget to take your Kool-Aid with you.

Cold-blooded. I like it.

"Adam K." wrote in message
om...
Whoa, Nelly!

Slow down.

I've never voted Republican in my life.

Take me with you.

ak

You must be one of those "Independents" I keep hearing about.

Mike Rapoport wrote:

To be fair, the only reason that there was a surplus is because the
country
got caught up in a technology stock mania. The market was generating
trillions of short term gains and taxes on those gains is what swelled
federal and state coffers. Bush entered the white house with millions of
taxpayers carrying forward losses.

But those coffers were swelled. That some were carrying losses is a separate
issue. Unless you think it was up to the government to make those losses go
away.


--
Frank....H

"Terry Bolands" wrote in message
om...
"Jim Fisher" wrote in message
. ..

But they can't get married and they can't fly low wing planes. That's
just
they way it is.

It's not "just the way it is". You can feel it is wrong if you want,
but it's not an innate truism that gay people can't get married.

Ahh, but it is a truism if one accept the absolute fact that "marraige" has
been recognized for thousands of years as a religous tenant. We aren't
talking "unions" but marraige. Governemental support of a marraige between
a man and a woman and, thus, protection of the familial unit is supported
and recognized beacause such support has historically contributed to to
overall, long-term survival of governing bodies.

Man+man and woman+woman does NOT a stable family make and does a government
absolutely no good.

This makes it a truism, Terry. You don't have to like it but a rational
person cannot deny it.

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.

Why call it sexually aberrant? I agree, that is an affront to your
intelligence.

"ab·er·rant (br-nt, -br,-)
adj.
1.. Deviating from the proper or expected course.
2.. Deviating from what is normal; untrue to type.
Man+woman - Expected and even proper.
Man+man - Untrue to type

Gay+high wing: Expected and proper.
Straight+low wing: Expected and proper

Woman+Woman - I don't necessarily have a problem with this (marriage or
adoptive rights-wise) but it is still aberrant.

Until the gay population becomes a significant portion of the population,
gay behavior will be considered "abnormal" and "aberrant." You don't have
to like that fact but it is axiomatic.

--
Jim Fisher

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

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.

--
Frank....H

"kontiki" wrote in message
...
If you apply any intellectual honesty to the campaign rhetoric out of
the Kerry/Edwards duo you would certainly conclude that the facts were
not in total alignment.

I'm not really sure what the point of your post is. I have never said, nor
do I believe, that Kerry was all that great a candidate. I am strictly
addressing the *facts* that Bush had his chance to prove what kind of
President he'd be, and he wound up being a lying, war-mongering one.

Maybe Kerry would've been too...who knows? But at least he'd have been a
*different* lying, war-mongering President.

Neither candidate ran what I felt was a "stellar" race. They both said all
sorts of things that were either outright false or only half-true. But only
one of the candidates lied about the conditions under which he'd attack
Iraq, as well as whether and how Iraq had ties to al-Qaeda at all, and then
later continued to lie about whether he'd lied.

But the real issue here is that the people who voted for Bush, on the whole,
simply either refuse to believe the factual reports that contradict
everything Bush claimed and claims, or failed to pay attention to those
reports when they were made. Contrary to what Laura apparently would like
to believe, this isn't just an issue about "fellow voters who simply do not
agree with [someone else's] world views". The "fellow voters" aren't even
in possession of the facts.

I can respect someone that fully understands what Bush did, and still
decides that in the greater scheme of things we're better off with Bush.
That's fine. But when a person simply doesn't know the facts or refuses to
believe the facts, and then bases a decision on *that*, I find that to be a
clear indication of a lack of intelligence. Just as Bob implies, and to
which Laura took (inappropriate) offense.

Pete

In rec.aviation.ifr Jim Fisher wrote:

Ahh, but it is a truism if one accept the absolute fact that "marraige" has
been recognized for thousands of years as a religous tenant.

So True. But arn't we supposed to have a separation of church and state?
If thats the case what's the state doing in the marriage business?

Governemental support of a marraige between
a man and a woman and, thus, protection of the familial unit is supported
and recognized beacause such support has historically contributed to to
overall, long-term survival of governing bodies.

I've heard this arguement before. It usually infers that marriage needs
to be governmentally supported for the protection of the children in the
marriage. If you agree to this, then do you agree that the hetrosexual
couples who can't/won't have children need to have the licenses revoked?

Man+man and woman+woman does NOT a stable family make and does a government
absolutely no good.

Depends upon your definition of stable family.

Its a poor sampling, but right now the divorce rate between legally
married gay couples is a lot less than hetrosexual couples.


--
Frank Stutzman
Bonanza N494B "Hula Girl"
Hood River, OR

Frank wrote:

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

All he has to do is contribute more. He can start with giving away the
money he saved in tax cuts to a worthy charity. For my own part, I pay
enough in taxes and anybody - wealthy or not - saying I should pay more is
in for a bitter discussion.

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 a bit difficult to believe
that the wealthiest individual in the US Congress is "looking out for the
common man". I'm not convinced he knows what the "common man's experience"
really is. What we need in Congress is more "common men" to truly look out
for "the common man".

--
John T
http://tknowlogy.com/TknoFlyer
http://www.pocketgear.com/products_s...veloperid=4415
____________________