Run In With Mr. Edwards

In article ,
(C Kingsbury) wrote:

Meanwhile the
notion of a luxury tax, tried under Bush I, was so thoroughly
discredited by experience that it likely won't be heard from for
another generation. It devastated the boatbuilding industry so badly
even the big lefties had to admit it was a dumb idea.

really? Somehow I missed the big lefties admitting that. Do you
have a source for that? I'm not challenging you, I'd just like
to see it.

--
Bob Noel
Seen on Kerry's campaign airplane: "the real deal"
oh yeah baby.

Mike,

There. Now I feel better.


Me too g.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Michael,

I'd settle for voting him out in November.


Didn't work last time.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

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.

I think you should vote for him Jay. Be true to your principles.

Heh, good one.

Actually, I may.

It's kinda refreshing to see the Libertarians running a legitimate candidate
for office. Not the usual unelectable nut-case type they've run in the
past...
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

With the exception of the homophobic aspects of your post, I'd like to
thank you for saying what I am sure that many of us here on this board
have been thinking about Mr. Campbell for a long time.

I've followed both of their posts here for years, and they're both a bit off
the beaten trail, as far as I'm concerned.

But C J never stoops to profanity, nor will he fall to the level of 4th
grade name-calling.

What a silly, pointless post. Shame on you, Mike.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

"Jay Somerset" wrote in message
...

snip
And just how close do you think you would have got to Cheney or Bush?
Let's
keep your inconvenience in perspective -- you are wrong to blame either
Edwards or the Democrats (I am actually a Republican, so this is an
unbiased
comment).


snip

But... Bush and Cheney are actually *somebody*...


---
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

Peter Duniho wrote:
"Blanche" wrote in message
...

I guess it's going to take a Constitutional amendment (sure, right)
to have the option "None of the above".


It might. I'm not really sure, since to be honest, I've never bothered to
look up what actually defines exactly how we vote.

I mean, yes...the electoral college is from the Constitution, but that's not
the real problem, not as it's used today. If states, for example, allowed
voters to vote for more than one candidate, then a vote for Nader would not
mean (on average) a vote against Kerry, as it does today.

There is ample precedent for alternative voting mechanisms. The main
problem is that the folks who control how we vote are the same folks who
have a vested interest in locking out all of the "third parties". Though,
given how the Democrats claim that Nader screwed up the last election for
them, it may be that they may find that third parties that get popular
enough (and it doesn't take much popularity) are enough of a thorn in their
side that they would be willing to give up their virtual monopoly (shared
with the Republicans, who so far haven't had a similarly disruptive similar
party running with them) on holding office.

One thing's for sure, when you've got one party (the Republicans in this
case) helping fund activities intended to support another party (the
Greens), simply because the more that other party succeeds, the less the
real competition (the Democrats) can succeed, something is really screwed
up.

Pete



Pete, you're assuming that having a third, fourth, or more parties would
be good for politics. Having been born in a country that has a
notoriously fractured political structure, with 50+ parties running for
parliment and a good dozen or so well represented, I can attest to the
fact that multi-party politics serves only to benefit the fringe
fanatics by making them more important than they really are because they
are necessary for coalition building. What you end up with is an
incredibly unstable government that is always under the threat of
breaking apart. The smaller, fringe (and sometimes fanatic) parties
twist the arms of the coalition to get their way, to the detriment of
the country. Of course, I am talking about Israel, a country mired in an
asinine political system that has the moderate majority held hostage by
the radicals on every side (and we're talking about a completely
multi-dimensional political spectrum). The results have been disastrous
for Israel in both domestic and foreign policy.

Yes sir, I have come to appreciate the blandness and uniformity of the
Republicrat system. It's the worst system, except for all the others
:-) Seriously, though, the two party system necessitates a measure of
moderation, since the only way a radical government can stay in power is
if a majority of American voters are radical, at which point it's
difficult to call that segment of the population radical. That's not
too bad of a system, IMHO.

Having said that, the beauty of the current system is that it has NO
basis in law. There ARE other parties, they DO get on ballots, and
there have been plenty of precedents for third party or no party
candidates being elected into office. If one of the major parties takes
a swing too far in one direction as to turn off a lot of voters, and
some other party or candidate takes a position that does resonate with
people widely, then that party will run and win, period.

I find it unhelpful to complain about the "system" when what we're
really talking about is current voting patterns. Those can be changed
if the message has wide merit and appeal. And yes, that also includes
having enough merit and appeal to enable the third party to raise funds
to become viable. I think it's only fair.

-Aviv Hod

On Tue, 24 Aug 2004 03:11:45 GMT, "Jay Honeck"
wrote:

And, once again for the reading impaired -- if the President comes to town,
it's a whole different world than if a V.P. candidate rolls in.

But Jay, Bush too was once only a candidate, and so was his running
mate Cheney. To use your words, Cheney was a VP wannabe. At that
time they both were accorded the same protection that Edwards and
Kerry now rate. If Bush/Cheney deserved the protection then, don't
Kerry/Edwards deserve it now?

Corky Scott

"Tom Fleischman" wrote in message

With the exception of the homophobic aspects of your post, I'd like to
thank you for saying what I am sure that many of us here on this board
have been thinking about Mr. Campbell for a long time.

Well, whatever. I'm thinking a whole lot less of Mr. Regish right now.

-Trent

"H.P." wrote in message m...
How in heavens name would a GA pilot vote for Edwards, a personal injury
lawyer who's inclined to sue General Aviation out of existence? He's
already attempted to sue Obstetricians into oblivion so that pregnant moms
sometimes have to fly to the nearest available OB\GYN willing to deliver
their babies! And can you tell me that John F'n Ketchup won't regulate or
tax GA to death?

Do you have grounds for this? Or is a just a rant? It's fine with me
if you want to rant, I just want to distinguish it, that's all.

I've been following multiple news sources and here's what I've seen on
the candidates and GA: Nothing on Edwards feelings for GA one way or
the other. But, might have missed something.

Kerry's an active GA pilot and would be expected to have some
understanding of the issues facing GA. Neither Kerry or Edwards has
asked for TFRs when campaigning, that might mean they're GA-friendly.

Bush is an inactive pilot and in TX showed no interest one way or the
other in GA. He let Mueller airport in Austin close without comment.
Since then there's a lack of a good GA airport in central TX.

Cheney's not a pilot and doesn't seem to have a concern about GA
either way from what I see. Both he and Bush have those fun TFRs
following them around the country. And both apparently support the
Wash. DC ADIZ.

From the scant evidence I see KE may be a little more in favor of GA
than BC are. But, frankly GA isn't showing up on either party's
radar.

-Malcolm Teas