Run In With Mr. Edwards

You might consider spending some time with the dictionary, specifically with
"liberal" and "conservative". Our political scale is generally considered to
consist of a center, with liberalism to the left of center and conservatism
to the right.

If you want to consider Bush to be not a conservative, the farthest to the
left you could place him would be the center, as he is certainly not a
liberal. Kerry, however, is about as liberal as you can get.

All of this is relative: you can't compare the liberalism/conservatism of
1776 with that of today. Views on government have changed far too much to
permit that.

One response: Bush on education. Bush is trying to repair and put some
rationality into federal education spending. But Bush did not put the
original programs into place, that was done primarily by liberals. And Bush
cannot get rid of the programs. Most of what Bush has done, for all
practical purposes, is rename some programs and try to improve them. But he
has not put any totally new educational programs into place.

I really don't care who you vote for; that's a choice our wonderful nation
gives you. But I do hope you try to get a little better understanding of
both candidates and what they are all about...



"Andrew Gideon" wrote in message
online.com...
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

So you are saying that you will gladly surrender your rights and your
ability to
make business while the prez (again, no matter if Bush or somebody else)
is in
town?

Surrender my rights and ability to make business? No.

Delay my departure from an airport? Sure.

The most powerful man on earth -- POTUS -- is a target for virtually every
nut-group. His survival is intrinsically linked with the potential
survival of the U.S. itself, and therefore his life must be protected in a
fail-safe manner.

If this means TFRs and closing ramps while Air Force One is here, I'm fine
with that.

But not for a wannabee V.P. candidate.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Bill Denton wrote:

You might consider spending some time with the dictionary, specifically
with "liberal" and "conservative". Our political scale is generally
considered to consist of a center, with liberalism to the left of center
and conservatism to the right.

"Left" and "Right" are terribly poor guides, in that to my left is a table
and my right a wall. "Liberal" vs. "Conservative" involves the willingless
one has to make claims about interpreting the intent of our Constitution.
A "complete" conservative takes none, and sees but the words. A "complete"
liberal pretends to know the minds of the authors better than the authors,
and therefore takes complete freedom with the words.

Conservative also means "traditional", which is getting less and less
helpful over the years as history grows to include so many different
"traditions". I'd not expect, for example, that following an economically
irresponsible administation Conservatism would suddenly mean economically
irresponsible.

[Although perhaps that's precisely what's occurring today laugh.]

Of course, all these are pretty silly anyway, in that they're one
dimensional. One can be liberal in economic topics while conservative in
social topics, for one very obvious and simplistic example.

Kerry is almost certainly economically liberal (although he's doing a
semi-decent job of claiming otherwise; I've no faith in that) and almost
certainly socially conservative. Bush is liberal in all areas. No
conservative would get the Federal Government anywhere near a "definition"
of marriage. No conservative would put tarrifs on steel (absent something
like someone dumping on us, or some such excuse). No conservative would
pass the so-called Patriot Act.

And so on...

[...]

All of this is relative: you can't compare the liberalism/conservatism of
1776 with that of today. Views on government have changed far too much to
permit that.

In detail, this is true. In a general sense, however, the same issues
remain valid: partitioning of responsibility between various branches and
levels of government, and with final responsibility resting on us.
Remembering both the "by" and the "for" is as valid today as it was a
couple of centuries ago.

- Andrew

Andrew Gideon wrote:

"Liberal" vs. "Conservative" involves the
willingless one has to make claims about interpreting the intent of our
Constitution.
A "complete" conservative takes none, and sees but the words. A
"complete" liberal pretends to know the minds of the authors better than
the authors, and therefore takes complete freedom with the words.

Hmm...this is too limited. It ignores that these words can be applied
outside of our country (either geographically or chronologically). For
example, there's this:

http://www.majorcox.com/columns/liberal.htm

which refers to "The liberal idea of religious freedom" in the context of
1620 Europe and America. No U.S. Constitution to be interpreted in that
chronological context.

This explains a lot about the current "conservative" administration,
perhaps.

For an example of greater confusion, see:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1067375/posts

- Andrew

Jay Honeck wrote:
The most powerful man on earth -- POTUS -- is a target for virtually every
nut-group. His survival is intrinsically linked with the potential
survival of the U.S. itself, and therefore his life must be protected in a
fail-safe manner.

It's important to protect the President within reason, but he is NOT
"intrinsically linked with the potential survival of the U.S. itself".
The country has well defined procedures for the transfer of power, and our
country would continue, just fine, without the President. The Secret
Service has been, basically, out of control since JFK was assasinated, and
sees no limit to how far they should go to protect the President. The
continued ADIZ around DC is a glaring example. Some of us think that
protecting our civil liberties is also important.

If this means TFRs and closing ramps while Air Force One is here, I'm fine
with that.
But not for a wannabee V.P. candidate.

He has very little to do with it. The protection is automatic. It seems
fairly obvious that you're being effected by your political preferences
(ie, refering to Edwards by funny names... ie, Senator NiceHair, etc or
whatever you said). I suspect that, during a Democratic administration, if
you were inconvenienced by a Republican candidate, you wouldn't be nearly
as upset.

--- Jay



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

Bob Noel wrote:

Peter Duniho wrote:

I don't want this to become a "bash Kerry" or "trash Bush" thread.

What a bizarre thing to write. You *started* the thread as a "bash Kerry"
(well, bash his VP candidate) thread.

I saw it as more of a bash the stupid protection post.

Jay made it political with the way he directly blamed the candidate for
preventing him from access to his aircraft, using disparaging names and
other remarks that clearly were aimed at the Democratic slate. Had he
simply described the security as over the top, then it wouldn't have
become a flame war.

"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

He has very little to do with it. The protection is automatic. It seems
fairly obvious that you're being effected by your political preferences
(ie, refering to Edwards by funny names... ie, Senator NiceHair, etc or
whatever you said). I suspect that, during a Democratic administration, if
you were inconvenienced by a Republican candidate, you wouldn't be nearly
as upset.

Well, I'm hoping to see Richard Campagna
(http://www.badnarik.org/campagna_bio.php) in Iowa one of these days. He
and his running mate, Michael Badnarik, are starting to look like the only
viable alternatives for my vote.

We'll see if the security apparatus goes ape-sh*t over him the way they did
over Edwards.

If they do, you can look forward to another long thread...
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Jay Honeck wrote:

Since so many are having trouble distinguishing the salient point of my
post, let me say it again. This time in super-sloooow-mooootion, for the
reading impaired:

John Edwards isn't the President. He isn't the Vice-President. He is
nobody but a run-of-the-mill Senator.

I have no problem with giving the President of the United States the
tightest possible security. If George Bush had been in Des Moines, I would
have completely understood the treatment I received.

Giving a dime-a-dozen politician this kind of protection, however, is
patently absurd.

Regarding why your point might have been obscured, let me remind you
what you wrote in your original posts:

"Mr. Liability-Attorney's 727"
"Mr. Ketchup's side-kick"
"If this is what we have to look forward to under a Kerry/Edwards
presidency, I fear the worst is yet to come."
"The Democrats claim to be the "party of the people" -- yet they treat
potential constituents like this?"

Had you not provided the political slant and directly blamed the
Democratic candidates for the inconvenience, you would not have obscured
your own message.

To provide my own political slant, I might note that "this kind of
protection" is being offered under the Bush/Cheney presidency, so you
don't have to look forward, it is here now under the present
administration.

Regarding the fact that the candidate has protection, even though he is
not in fact the VP, that's just the sort of soft target a terrorist
might look for, because of the news coverage it would get, and some form
of protection is probably justified.

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
news:a%pWc.76075$TI1.45999@attbi_s52...
Well, I'm hoping to see Richard Campagna
(http://www.badnarik.org/campagna_bio.php) in Iowa one of these days. He
and his running mate, Michael Badnarik, are starting to look like the only
viable alternatives for my vote.

Until we fix the voting system in the US, a vote for anyone other than the
two major candidates is really just a vote against the person you'd have
otherwise voted for. And of course, that's exactly the opposite of what you
really want.

If you genuinely couldn't care less which of the two major candidates gets
elected, then I suppose you might as well vote for some other random person.
No different than staying home, or leaving that race unvoted on your ballot.
Certainly no better though.

I've always been a bit puzzled that the independent parties don't stop
wasting time putting up candidates for races they'll never win, drawing
votes from the major candidate most closely aligned with their thinking.
It's counterproductive. They'd do much better working on the voting process
first, so that third-party races were actually viable rather than
disruptive.

I, for one, would love to be able to vote for someone other than a Rep or
Dem in a way that was actually meaningful.

Pete