Rep vs. Dem Differences

C J Campbell wrote:

Except that neither the Quakers nor the Puritans had much to do with the
founding of America beyond being some of the earliest settlers.

Not directly, but the freedom from religion amendment to the Constitution had as much
to do with reaction to the way the Puritans ran their section of the Colony as it did
the national religious dictates of England.

George Patterson
If you want to know God's opinion of money, just look at the people
he gives it to.

"G.R. Patterson III" wrote in message
...


C J Campbell wrote:

Except that neither the Quakers nor the Puritans had much to do with the
founding of America beyond being some of the earliest settlers.

Not directly, but the freedom from religion amendment to the Constitution
had as much
to do with reaction to the way the Puritans ran their section of the
Colony as it did
the national religious dictates of England.

To the contrary, it is the freedom OF religion amendment, not freedom FROM
religion. And it had far less to do with Puritanism than it had with the
Masonic philosophies of the founding fathers. Puritanism was not interested
in freedom of religion, but other colonies actively promoted it.

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

What this amendment says is that there shall be no 'official' religion of
the United States, nor shall any law prohibit the free exercise of religion.
There are altogether too many people who wish to eradicate religion from the
country, which would be a direct violation of this right.

On Sun, 29 Aug 2004 22:29:31 -0700, Brian Burger wrote:

I was thinking about something similar, watching US Presidential stuff &
recalling our recent Canadian federal election - and, basically, the US
doesn't have a left wing the way Canadians or Europeans would understand
it!

For all the Republican ranting about 'leftist socialists', if Kerry
moved to Canada, even our most rightwing mainstream party, the
Conservatives, wouldn't have him. He'd be way off in right field all by
himself, even with the Conservatives.

And Kerry is the 'left' in the US Presidential race. Imagine where
this leaves W... (goosestepping rapidly over the horizon, possibly...)

It's part of the problem, I think, with international relations - US
politics is skewed so far right that the rest of us just can't relate
anymore.

Brian.

Do you think maybe, just maybe, Canadian politics are skewed too far left?

Ron

On Tue, 31 Aug 2004, OP wrote:

Do you think maybe, just maybe, Canadian politics are skewed too far left?

No, actually. I think we'd be better off with another nudge to the left.
Just enough to have a gov't with more independence from Washington DC,
actually, one that could (for example) be honest about this 'Son of Star
Wars' BS that's being touted right now...

As for Canadians being too far left, check the Europeans out - they're
farther left still, even by Canadian standards...

Brian.

I'll have to confess to being mystified the overwhelming appeal among pilots
of a jet jockey who hid out in the National Guard over a GA pilot like us
who had the conviction to put his ass in the line of fire.

I think it has a lot to do with response to emergencies and, boy, are the
Republicans ever beating that drum. If you watched the convention coverage
without knowing the background, you would think they knocked those towers
down themselves and were proud of it. No wonder many Arabs think that is
what happened.

We train for instinctive reactions to emergencies. If an engine fails on
takeoff, we admire the pilot who, almost without thought, can pull the
throttle, feather the engine, put the proper rudder pedal in, and set the
proper airspeed while chewing gum and telling the tower he needs to come
around for an emergency landing.

Bush projects exactly that kind of smoothness, assurance, and decisive
response. It comforts the voters and makes pilots, especially those who do a
lot of emergency drilling, say, "My kind of guy."

I read a profile of Scott Crossfield recently. It described the thoroughness
of his preparations for flying the X-15 to the edge of space for the first
time, the questions, the double checking, the consideration of possible
failures. Above all, he was aware that things could happen that he would
have to improvise and think his way through instead of producing a drilled
and rehearsed reaction.

If a pilot had approached Crossfield's flights as if they were flying a
commuter twin from A to B, Crossfield and most of the rest of us would have
considered him a fool. If a commuter pilot approached each flight like it
was an X-15, he would be looking for a job after the first one (which he
delayed three days to have the cable tensions checked again).

Let's face it. This election is about handling terrorism. The major
philosophical divide is not liberal vs. conservative but whether dealing
with this new evil in the world is like flying the twin commuter or the
X-15.

It was "Ho, hum, we trained, fighting the last war, We're ready for
anything.", thinking that let 911 happen. The blame there is bi-partisan.

The response however, has been like a commuter twin pilot hopping in the
X-15 saying, "No problem, I spent two weeks at Flight Safety." Right now, it
looks like it's zooming up great and everyone's cheering but the guys on the
ground know that it's way out of it's flight envelop and the problems just
haven't shown up yet. (Did you watch 60 minutes last night?)

I'm pretty sure we are all riding in an X-15 right now. Nothing is certain
but I'd rather switch to a new pilot who at least has the potential and has
declared the policy approaches to conduct the flight Crossfield style than
one who has proven himself a cocky an arrogant cowboy with a propensity to
take the easy way out of every situation.


--

Roger Long

"Roger Long" wrote in message news:dsFYc.49999

I'll have to confess to being mystified the overwhelming appeal among
pilots
of a jet jockey who hid out in the National Guard over a GA pilot like us
who had the conviction to put his ass in the line of fire.

I'm a little mystified that any appeal should have anything to do with
wings.

If you want to use an aviation analogy, however, it can't be simplistic. A
more apt one might be to say - if we operate these particular flights today
and for the next year or so to these particular destinations, what will be
the impact on all these destination airports, as opposed to others, and what
will be the impact on all the airports we are not flying to? And if we do
operate in this manner, what will be the long term impact on the airline
industry and aircraft manufacturers, versus had we not operated the flights
at all? In short, if we operate the flights in this way as opposed to some
other way, will we, in ten years' time, still have aircraft and airports?
Still have a viable aviation system?

On Mon, 30 Aug 2004 12:54:33 GMT, "Roger Long"
wrote:

We train for instinctive reactions to emergencies. If an engine fails on
takeoff, we admire the pilot who, almost without thought, can pull the
throttle, feather the engine, put the proper rudder pedal in, and set the
proper airspeed while chewing gum and telling the tower he needs to come
around for an emergency landing.

Bush projects exactly that kind of smoothness, assurance, and decisive
response. It comforts the voters and makes pilots, especially those who do a
lot of emergency drilling, say, "My kind of guy."

Well Roger, lucky for us we have film of exactly how "Dubya" reacted
when told the news of the attacks on the WTC because he was being
filmed at the time reading to kids in a classroom in Florida when an
aide approached and gave him the news. There it is in cold hard film,
the actual reaction of the big guy when told of the worst attack upon
the United States since Pearl Harbor.

His smooth assured and decisive reaction? He sat there stunned for 8
minutes on camera until someone came and hustled him out of the
classroom.

Maybe you can offer another, better, example of calm smooth assurance.
Please? I could sure use it because he often seems a sandwich short
of a picnic to me.

Corky Scott

Bush projects exactly that kind of smoothness, assurance, and decisive
response. It comforts the voters and makes pilots, especially those who do a
lot of emergency drilling, say, "My kind of guy."



CorkyWell Roger, lucky for us we have film of exactly how "Dubya" reacted
when told the news of the attacks on the WTC because he was being
filmed at the time reading to kids in a classroom in Florida when an
aide approached and gave him the news. There it is in cold hard film,
the actual reaction of the big guy when told of the worst attack upon
the United States since Pearl Harbor.

His smooth assured and decisive reaction? He sat there stunned for 8
minutes on camera until someone came and hustled him out of the
classroom.


Exactly. As close to the proverbial "deer in the headlights" look as I have
ever seen.
The film (and there are others besides Michael Moore's because many cameras
were rolling at the time) simply does NOT lie.

Maybe you can offer another, better, example of calm smooth assurance.
Please? I could sure use it because he often seems a sandwich short
of a picnic to me.


Well, he looked pretty self-assured when he landed on the aircraft carrier in a
flight suit under the "Mission Accomplished" banner. I'll be he loved that.
Probably enjoyed having Thanksgiving with the troops, too. He's (I am told) a
very nice guy, but he's way over his head.

And I promised myself I would stay out of politics on this NG . . . sorry, but
I couldn't help myself. :-(



www.Rosspilot.com

We are talking appearance Vs reality here. One event shows planned
(probably by handlers) reactions and the other the real ones.

--

Roger Long

"Corky Scott" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 30 Aug 2004 12:54:33 GMT, "Roger Long"
wrote:

We train for instinctive reactions to emergencies. If an engine fails on
takeoff, we admire the pilot who, almost without thought, can pull the
throttle, feather the engine, put the proper rudder pedal in, and set the
proper airspeed while chewing gum and telling the tower he needs to come
around for an emergency landing.

Bush projects exactly that kind of smoothness, assurance, and decisive
response. It comforts the voters and makes pilots, especially those who do
a
lot of emergency drilling, say, "My kind of guy."

Well Roger, lucky for us we have film of exactly how "Dubya" reacted
when told the news of the attacks on the WTC because he was being
filmed at the time reading to kids in a classroom in Florida when an
aide approached and gave him the news. There it is in cold hard film,
the actual reaction of the big guy when told of the worst attack upon
the United States since Pearl Harbor.

His smooth assured and decisive reaction? He sat there stunned for 8
minutes on camera until someone came and hustled him out of the
classroom.


Baloney. He continued reading. What was he supposed to do, run out of the
classroom screaming? Kerry himself admits to sitting stunned for 40 minutes,
so I suppose 8 minutes is five times better than Kerry.

Seriously, what is it that you think a President could have done? No one
knew whether it was a terrorist attack or just another airline accident. I
would be very interested in knowing what magical powers Presidents have.