Leaving the community

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.

C Kingsbury wrote:

My dream team is Giuliani-Rice. Not likely to happen but the Red Sox weren't
supposed to beat the Yankees after being down 0-3 either. That team could
put nearly the entire country in play.

Mine is Giuliani-Powell. Nothing against Rice, but I've been impressed
with Powell since he first came on the scene in Desert Storm.


Matt

Matt Whiting wrote:
C Kingsbury wrote:

My dream team is Giuliani-Rice. Not likely to happen but the Red Sox weren't
supposed to beat the Yankees after being down 0-3 either. That team could
put nearly the entire country in play.

Mine is Giuliani-Powell. Nothing against Rice, but I've been impressed
with Powell since he first came on the scene in Desert Storm.

Rice has never had an elected position, so I'm rather apprehensive
about that. As for Powell -- very unlikely as his family is very
much against it, and he's stated it.

On the other hand, if Rehnquist resigns, Sandra Day O'Connor is next
in line for Chief Justice of the Supremes! But as one pundit said today,
she's already got huge power as the swing vote all the time.

On 11/3/04 7:17 PM, in article , "Blanche"
wrote:


On the other hand, if Rehnquist resigns, Sandra Day O'Connor is next
in line for Chief Justice of the Supremes! But as one pundit said today,
she's already got huge power as the swing vote all the time.



Chief Justice is designated by the President, and is not always the one with
the longest tenure. I wouldn't set my hopes on a Chief Justice O'Connor if I
were you. Since she's already in her 70's, I'd put my money on one that will
be around a bit longer.
--
Jeff 'The Wizard of Draws' Bucchino
Cartoons with a Touch of Magic�
http://www.wizardofdraws.com
http://www.cartoonclipart.com

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"

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.

I've often wondered why some people feel the need to insult the intelligence of
their fellow voters who simply do not agree with their world views. Different
people have different experiences in their life, and some people even study
macroeconomics in depth. And the same treatment is given to candidates.
Although he has his moments, everyone knows Bush isn't a great orator, but he
sure isn't an idiot either.

Finally, the notion that somebody can't share in a newsgroup because some other
people in the same group have a different political leaning is reminiscent of
early childhood mentality. Hopefully this person will reconsider, perhaps after
sleeping on it.

"Laura Clayton" wrote in message
...
Apparently you can fool 50% of the people, but there is always a noise
function.

I've often wondered why some people feel the need to insult the
intelligence of their fellow voters who simply do not agree with
their world views.

Actually, according to the Gallup Poll, among Republicans you can fool over
60% of the people.

I can't speak for where Bob's coming from, but the truth remains that for
the most part, people who voted for Bush don't actually have their facts
straight. This is not disputable.

Pete

If you apply any intellectual honesty to the campaign rhetoric out of
the Kerry/Edwards duo you would certainly conclude that the facts were
not in total alignment.

No matter how you slice it however, the endless litany of complaints,
criticisms and Monday morning quarterbacking that cam out of Kerry's
mouth is what turned a lot of people off. Anybody can bitch about stuff.

Kerry had 20 years in the senate to do some constructive things what the
hell was he doing all that time (besides wind-surfing and playing golf).



Peter Duniho wrote:

I can't speak for where Bob's coming from, but the truth remains that for
the most part, people who voted for Bush don't actually have their facts
straight. This is not disputable.

Pete

"kontiki" wrote in message
...
If you apply any intellectual honesty to the campaign rhetoric out of
the Kerry/Edwards duo you would certainly conclude that the facts were
not in total alignment.

I'm not really sure what the point of your post is. I have never said, nor
do I believe, that Kerry was all that great a candidate. I am strictly
addressing the *facts* that Bush had his chance to prove what kind of
President he'd be, and he wound up being a lying, war-mongering one.

Maybe Kerry would've been too...who knows? But at least he'd have been a
*different* lying, war-mongering President.

Neither candidate ran what I felt was a "stellar" race. They both said all
sorts of things that were either outright false or only half-true. But only
one of the candidates lied about the conditions under which he'd attack
Iraq, as well as whether and how Iraq had ties to al-Qaeda at all, and then
later continued to lie about whether he'd lied.

But the real issue here is that the people who voted for Bush, on the whole,
simply either refuse to believe the factual reports that contradict
everything Bush claimed and claims, or failed to pay attention to those
reports when they were made. Contrary to what Laura apparently would like
to believe, this isn't just an issue about "fellow voters who simply do not
agree with [someone else's] world views". The "fellow voters" aren't even
in possession of the facts.

I can respect someone that fully understands what Bush did, and still
decides that in the greater scheme of things we're better off with Bush.
That's fine. But when a person simply doesn't know the facts or refuses to
believe the facts, and then bases a decision on *that*, I find that to be a
clear indication of a lack of intelligence. Just as Bob implies, and to
which Laura took (inappropriate) offense.

Pete

I agree with much of what you said except the below assessment:

Peter Duniho wrote:
But the real issue here is that the people who voted for Bush, on the whole,
simply either refuse to believe the factual reports that contradict
everything Bush claimed and claims, or failed to pay attention to those
reports when they were made.

If this is true, then I submit that people who voted for Kerry and Edwards
refused to believe any factual reports that contradicted many of their claims
as well. Kerry failed to make his case to the vast majority of America.
The exception was the Democratic bastions of the northeast and the left coast.
Those areas of the country would vote for the democratic candidate if it
was Alfred E. Newman, admit it!

When it is all said and done, most Americans felt like they could sleep
better at night voting for Bush (myself included). More of us were voting
*for* a ticket as opposed to *against* one.