Run In With Mr. Edwards

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
news:4w9Wc.69806$TI1.46647@attbi_s52...
I thought the Democrats were saying that Kerry and Edwards were "the
Answer"
to these problems, Pete?

Why would you think that? I haven't seen a single statement from anyone
qualified to speak about the Democratic platform that would suggest that.
If anything, they are playing up the "Bush hasn't done enough" crap about
security.

What in the world makes you think that the Democrats "were saying that Kerry
and Edwards were 'the Answer' to these problems"?

Pete

What in the world makes you think that the Democrats "were saying that
Kerry
and Edwards were 'the Answer' to these problems"?

Well, hell -- an honest Democrat.

Why change horses if there's no problem The Johns can solve?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Jay Honeck wrote:

Why change horses if there's no problem The Johns can solve?

Even if we accept your premise - that there's no problem they can solve,
which is not what Peter wrote - the answer is still fairly blatent: to
avoid production (or exacerbation) of more.

I'm no fan of Kerry, but I'm a conservative voter and Bush is less
conservative than Kerry. From the Patriot Act to tariffs to education to
marriage (and so on), Bush has been getting the Federal Government into
places it doesn't belong. How much more liberal in the reading of our
Constitution can one get?

Strange as it is to write, I think that Kerry would do this less. Rather:
while Kerry would probably be as economically irresponsible as Bush, he's
less likely to be as liberal in areas involving Civil Rights.

These are definitely weird times!

- Andrew

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
news:_LkWc.217443$eM2.183110@attbi_s51...
Why change horses if there's no problem The Johns can solve?

Sorry, by "these problems" I assumed you were staying on topic and referring
only to the security issues.

There are plenty of things the Democrats claim to be able to do better.
Reducing the impact to your lifestyle due to security measures just doesn't
happen to be one of them.

Pete

"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...
"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
news91Wc.21556$9d6.17529@attbi_s54...
[...] If this is what we have to look forward to under a
Kerry/Edwards presidency, I fear the worst is yet to come.

Of all the idiotic posts you've made, this is certainly one of them.

Couldn't you at least *pretend* to hide your prejudice? Do you have even
a
shred of evidence that the exact same thing wouldn't have happened to you
had Dick Cheney showed up at the same airport in 1999? No, of course not.




True, but why does a *candidate* need all of the protection paid for by the
tax payers?


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.742 / Virus Database: 495 - Release Date: 8/20/2004

Chuck wrote:
True, but why does a *candidate* need all of the protection paid for by the
tax payers?

Because, once they've been given the candicacy by their party, they're
too big of a target for any nutcase (or terrorist group) who wants to
effect our election. That's the reason that they're afforded Secret
Service protection. It makes sense. Kerry and Edwards have very little
say in the situation. One thing they *do* have a say in is whether they
request a moving TFR over them. The Kerry people have NOT requested that,
so we've not been annoyed by additional TFRs related to them.




--
__!__
Jay and Teresa Masino ___(_)___
http://www2.ari.net/jmasino ! ! !
http://www.oceancityairport.com
http://www.oc-adolfos.com

On 23 Aug 2004 00:02:36 GMT, (Jay Masino)
wrote in ::

Because, once they've been given the candicacy by their party, they're
too big of a target for any nutcase (or terrorist group) who wants to
effect our election. That's the reason that they're afforded Secret
Service protection.

The name of Robert "Bobby" Kennedy comes to mind. :-(

It makes sense. Kerry and Edwards have very little
say in the situation. One thing they *do* have a say in is whether they
request a moving TFR over them. The Kerry people have NOT requested that,
so we've not been annoyed by additional TFRs related to them.

Perhaps there's hope sanity may yet prevail over the nation.

"Chuck" wrote in message
om...
True, but why does a *candidate* need all of the protection paid for by
the
tax payers?

Frankly, I don't think the in-office President needs all of it.

I'm not saying that what Jay experienced was justified or right. I'm just a
little irked at his blatantly prejudiced post. He could have simply
described the situation accurately, but instead he used inflammatory remarks
at every opportunity.

Pete

Presidential candidates have been afforded SS protection since the '68
election when both Robert Kennedy and George Wallace were shot.



"Chuck" wrote in message
om...

"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...
"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
news91Wc.21556$9d6.17529@attbi_s54...
[...] If this is what we have to look forward to under a
Kerry/Edwards presidency, I fear the worst is yet to come.

Of all the idiotic posts you've made, this is certainly one of them.

Couldn't you at least *pretend* to hide your prejudice? Do you have
even
a
shred of evidence that the exact same thing wouldn't have happened to
you
had Dick Cheney showed up at the same airport in 1999? No, of course
not.




True, but why does a *candidate* need all of the protection paid for by
the
tax payers?


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.742 / Virus Database: 495 - Release Date: 8/20/2004

"H.P." wrote in message
m...
Presidential candidates have been afforded SS protection since the '68
election when both Robert Kennedy and George Wallace were shot.

Only "Major candidates" are offered protection, and this protection
can be declined. See http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/ref/blssprotect.htm
In practice, the two "official" political parties get to decide who
is entitled to protection.

From Title 18, Sec. 3056

"Major Presidential and Vice Presidential candidates and,
within 120 days of the general Presidential election, the spouses
of such candidates. As used in this paragraph, the term ''major
Presidential and Vice Presidential candidates'' means those
individuals identified as such by the Secretary of the Treasury
after consultation with an advisory committee consisting of the
Speaker of the House of Representatives, the minority leader of
the House of Representatives, the majority and minority leaders
of the Senate, and one additional member selected by the other
members of the committee. The protection authorized in paragraphs
(2) through (7) may be declined."