Leaving the community

Since David is gone I guess I am asking anyone who cares to venture a
guess. What does the president have to do with these news groups?
Especially with the ending statements of "Thanks for all the
conversations. You guys have made me a better pilot." He doesn't like
the president so he is giving up a resource that can make him a better
pilot?

Just does not sound like a person that thinks rationally.



David Brooks wrote:

One thing - one of so very many things - I learned in my five years of
flying is that partisan politics does not fit into the cockpit. Most of my
flight instructors have, I know, been to the right of me politically. I had
a most enjoyable flight with CJ - although he has since earned my undying
enmity by unapologetically using the term "Final Solution" in connection
with me and people like me, an astonishing thought coming from an avowedly
religious man, but telling and apt.

But now it seems the nation has, albeit by a slim margin, re-elected a weak,
hypocritical, murderous coward. Three years ago, when some writers on the
left started talking about fascism, I thought that an absurd stretch. No
longer. The parallels are not precise - they never are - but the broad sweep
and many of the components of a new fascist state are in place. The 48% who
didn't vote for this disaster keep knocking on my consciousness, but they
are now feeble and impotent. The thugs are in charge.

That being so, and despite what should be an apolitical setting, 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, and chose as my home, into
the hands of Bush and his repressive, regressive masters.

So long. Thanks for all the conversations. You guys have made me a better
pilot.

-- David Brooks

Jay Honeck wrote:

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.


Agreed. I don't like everything about Bush but there was no way I was
going to vote for a guy claiming he will fight a smarter war on terror
and defend the country at the same time he takes a poll to see how he
should respond to the latest Bin Laden video.

Bush at least has firm beliefs in how things should be handled.

And now I am getting too political so I will end by saying I wish more
of my friends would try flying.

"Dan Luke" wrote in message
...

"David Brooks" wrote:
That being so, and despite what should be an apolitical setting, 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, and chose as my home,
into
the hands of Bush and his repressive, regressive masters.

So long. Thanks for all the conversations. You guys have made me a better
pilot.

Aww take it easy, David. I'm appalled that my fellow citizens would
re-elect Bush but, still, some of my best friends are Republicans. Hell,
my business partner is just a hair to the right of Gengis Khan.

Sometimes the hyperbole gets a little too far over the top -- C J is
certainly a prime practitioner of the art --


Speaking of CJ... he hasn't been heard from in a week or more????

NEVER EVER vote against a candidate! If you are voting against one
person that means you are assuming the person whose name you select will
be better without actually knowing.

If you get to a fork in the road and one way gets to where you want to
go but is gravel rutted out and pot marked with large puddles while the
other way is paved and looks like a pretty decent road but you have no
idea where it leads, which way do you take knowing once you decide, you
can not turn back?

It always bothers me when someone says they voted against someone
because that tells me they don't really know who they voted for. All
they know is that they don't like one candidate.

Now if you get to a fork in the road and decide you know you don't want
to go where one road leads and have no idea where the other leads, then
maybe you should have stopped and asked for directions.

More people really need to vote in the primaries.





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.

--
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"

"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
...
No, a fact is an invariant.

Really?

So, a statement regarding the position of the sun during the day isn't a
fact? After all, it varies continuously throughout the day.

You have an odd definition of what's a "fact".

Yes, most of these polls have significant biases.


Such as?

Such as who they talk to, where they conduct the poll, what time they poll
(as mentioned earlier, the working Republicans may not vote until after
the welfare liberals are done), and many other factors.

Only an ignorant asshole would seriously claim that all Republicans work
while all Democrats are on welfare.

Oh, I'm starting to see what your problem is...

In any case, if you have a legitimate beef with the polls in question, state
them. So far, you've made no suggestions about why those polls are
significantly wrong, and as I've already pointed out, the chances of those
polls being correct are MUCH greater than the chances of them being
drastically incorrect.

Pete

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.

Cecil Chapman wrote:

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.


I have often wondered how some people come to the conclusions that they do.
Jay,,, for goodness sake you sound like you are a sock-puppet mouthing the
words of his puppeteer (Bush - who was famous for the 'Kerry's just like T.
Kennedy' line). Kerry was far left? How, where? If anything he was as
centrist as Clinton was. You'd think he belonged to the Communist party to
hear the prattle that is coming off of your tongue.

snip

Clinton was centrist? He may seem that way if he parallels your own
beliefs. But he is well left.

Most people like to think of themselves as well rounded and
accommodating to those on either side of them. But typically you are
more one side or the other. Hence those that fall on the same area of
the scale as you do seem to be centrist and the type of person you would
like to see running the country.

Just don't forget the President doesn't actually run the country. There
are three branches of government after all. For example, don't blame
the president for a deficit. The president asks for money to do what he
or she thinks needs to be done but it is up to congress to give it to
him or her. If you don't like government spending, write your
representative in congress. That is what they are there for. And they
generally reply on some nice letter head.

On Fri, 05 Nov 2004 08:38:26 -0700, Newps wrote:



Dave Stadt wrote:



You would be hard pressed to prove that. Polls are at best one step above a
WAG.

Science proves it. But, everything has to go right for the poll to
achieve that margin of error. First you must get a represenative random
sample. This rarely happens, there's always a little error here.
Second the questions must not be skewed one way or the other. Third,
the people must tell the truth. This also never happens. They always
give the margin of error when you see a poll, this is a theoretical
number that cannot be reached because no poll will ever be truly random,
somebody always lies, or says they're someone their not, etc. One of
the pollsters on TV this week said that to get the 850+ responses for a
+-3% poll they had to call over 10,000 people. With those kinds of
problems no way can a poll be anymore than a guess.

This is really a hoot. We wouldn't be talking about this at all if
the exit polls hadn't been so wrong. There's the proof. As to why
this happened, my theory is that there is a systematic bias error
because people who voted for Bush had better things to do with their
time than talk to the pollster. Same thing with the phone polls,
9,150 people were too busy to talk to the pollster and there is a
bias that affects the results in that.

Klein

Ah, what the Hell...

My opinion... As I have heard several political analysts mention,
today's losers are the moderate middle of the road voters who are
stuck between the ever increasing extreme views of the to parties in
our two party system. Except for a very few instances were are a two
party system that just lets others play in the pond.

As the right and left move farther apart the moderate can only pick
and choose those from either party who come closest to his ideals.
Unfortunately *both* parties take that vote to mean that individual
supports their party rather than *some* of the individual candidates
ideals.

That vote does not necessarily mean the voter supports that party's
stance on right-to-life/choice, firearms, religion, or even liberal,
or conservatism. Until the party's lean this they will probably
continue to move farther to the left and to the right.

As to the 2nd amendment. Whether for or against those arguing should
remember the whole statement, not just "A well regulated Militia". It
ends with the statement, "The right of the Individual to bare arms
shall not be infringed". OTOH, back then the militia consisted of
_every_able_bodied_adult_male.

Contrary to the doctrine of both Democrats and Republicans we of the
heartland do not like to be told what we can and can not do. We don't
like government messing with our guns, choices, or beliefs (what ever
they may be).

In present reality there are no other parties. Just the two big frogs
in a pretty big pond where the shores are getting farther apart by the
minute, with a lot of voters stranded on an island out in the center.
Maybe (*hopefully*) some one will come up with a meaningful party that
represents us. Still it would be nice is the two major parties moved
back to within at least casting distance.

Those two parties have changed places once with each now representing
what the other stood for in their beginnings. Will they continue
their divergence until both become meaningless extremes or will they
learn by past mistakes?

They each say they represent us. Yet, can a man who has lived in
luxury and who owns numerous multimillion dollar homes identify with
the family trying to pay off a small family home and has to borrow to
sent the kids to college? How can some one like that then represent
someone who lives a life so alien to them? How do we in aviation feel
about trial lawyers and in particularly those in tort law? I'd be
very uneasy about the prospect of one of *those* lawyers becoming
president.

From the other side, we are Christians of many sects, Jew, Hindu,
Buddhist, Atheist, Agnostic, Islamic, and many, many others. How can
we expect to be represented by a born again Christian and wealthy
individual?

This is hardly a start on the issues as it'd take a thick book to list
them all and for each one, some one will have an answer. The problem
is they will not have an answer for all and most likely not even a
majority .

The point being, neither can fully represent the average individual.

That leaves those who do not completely embrace either the
Democratic, or Republican platforms as disenfranchised voters and
individuals that will end up with elected officials who really do not
properly represent them. These are the people who have to weigh the
issues by choosing which of their needs, wants, and beliefs are the
most important and the ones they will have to abandon. For either
party to take a vote as supporting their platforms is a grave mistake.

The rest of the world, who we have bailed out on a number of
occasions, sees us with a distorted view as we do them. Still, were
we to abandon them and tend only to our own internal needs the rest of
the world would slowly turn against us. Is it not better that we try
to stem the tide even though many disagree with us? Either way we go
we are going to gain enemies from within and without.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

On 11/5/04 9:35 PM, in article ,
"Roger" wrote:

As to the 2nd amendment. Whether for or against those arguing should
remember the whole statement, not just "A well regulated Militia". It
ends with the statement, "The right of the Individual to bare arms
shall not be infringed". OTOH, back then the militia consisted of
_every_able_bodied_adult_male.


The "well-regulated" portion of the amendment is the part that the
anti-gunners most commonly grasp at to justify their stance. They think that
they are just "regulating" a bit more, and after all, the amendment
specifically requires it, doesn't it?

The fact that they are unaware that the words used in the amendment don't
have the same meaning as they do today, illuminates quite nicely how
ignorant they are of history, the Constitution, and how little homework they
have done on the subject.
--
Jeff 'The Wizard of Draws' Bucchino
Cartoons with a Touch of Magic�
http://www.wizardofdraws.com
http://www.cartoonclipart.com