Leaving the community

Ah, what the Hell...

My opinion... As I have heard several political analysts mention,
today's losers are the moderate middle of the road voters who are
stuck between the ever increasing extreme views of the to parties in
our two party system. Except for a very few instances were are a two
party system that just lets others play in the pond.

As the right and left move farther apart the moderate can only pick
and choose those from either party who come closest to his ideals.
Unfortunately *both* parties take that vote to mean that individual
supports their party rather than *some* of the individual candidates
ideals.

That vote does not necessarily mean the voter supports that party's
stance on right-to-life/choice, firearms, religion, or even liberal,
or conservatism. Until the party's lean this they will probably
continue to move farther to the left and to the right.

As to the 2nd amendment. Whether for or against those arguing should
remember the whole statement, not just "A well regulated Militia". It
ends with the statement, "The right of the Individual to bare arms
shall not be infringed". OTOH, back then the militia consisted of
_every_able_bodied_adult_male.

Contrary to the doctrine of both Democrats and Republicans we of the
heartland do not like to be told what we can and can not do. We don't
like government messing with our guns, choices, or beliefs (what ever
they may be).

In present reality there are no other parties. Just the two big frogs
in a pretty big pond where the shores are getting farther apart by the
minute, with a lot of voters stranded on an island out in the center.
Maybe (*hopefully*) some one will come up with a meaningful party that
represents us. Still it would be nice is the two major parties moved
back to within at least casting distance.

Those two parties have changed places once with each now representing
what the other stood for in their beginnings. Will they continue
their divergence until both become meaningless extremes or will they
learn by past mistakes?

They each say they represent us. Yet, can a man who has lived in
luxury and who owns numerous multimillion dollar homes identify with
the family trying to pay off a small family home and has to borrow to
sent the kids to college? How can some one like that then represent
someone who lives a life so alien to them? How do we in aviation feel
about trial lawyers and in particularly those in tort law? I'd be
very uneasy about the prospect of one of *those* lawyers becoming
president.

From the other side, we are Christians of many sects, Jew, Hindu,
Buddhist, Atheist, Agnostic, Islamic, and many, many others. How can
we expect to be represented by a born again Christian and wealthy
individual?

This is hardly a start on the issues as it'd take a thick book to list
them all and for each one, some one will have an answer. The problem
is they will not have an answer for all and most likely not even a
majority .

The point being, neither can fully represent the average individual.

That leaves those who do not completely embrace either the
Democratic, or Republican platforms as disenfranchised voters and
individuals that will end up with elected officials who really do not
properly represent them. These are the people who have to weigh the
issues by choosing which of their needs, wants, and beliefs are the
most important and the ones they will have to abandon. For either
party to take a vote as supporting their platforms is a grave mistake.

The rest of the world, who we have bailed out on a number of
occasions, sees us with a distorted view as we do them. Still, were
we to abandon them and tend only to our own internal needs the rest of
the world would slowly turn against us. Is it not better that we try
to stem the tide even though many disagree with us? Either way we go
we are going to gain enemies from within and without.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

On 11/5/04 9:35 PM, in article ,
"Roger" wrote:

As to the 2nd amendment. Whether for or against those arguing should
remember the whole statement, not just "A well regulated Militia". It
ends with the statement, "The right of the Individual to bare arms
shall not be infringed". OTOH, back then the militia consisted of
_every_able_bodied_adult_male.


The "well-regulated" portion of the amendment is the part that the
anti-gunners most commonly grasp at to justify their stance. They think that
they are just "regulating" a bit more, and after all, the amendment
specifically requires it, doesn't it?

The fact that they are unaware that the words used in the amendment don't
have the same meaning as they do today, illuminates quite nicely how
ignorant they are of history, the Constitution, and how little homework they
have done on the subject.
--
Jeff 'The Wizard of Draws' Bucchino
Cartoons with a Touch of Magic�
http://www.wizardofdraws.com
http://www.cartoonclipart.com

"Jay Honeck" writes:

He said "OF COURSE the exit polls showed Kerry ahead early in the day -- all
the Republicans work for a living, and couldn't vote till after 6 PM!"

Nahh...all the Dems voted early, before they went to work, while the
Repubs were still asleep...

On Fri, 5 Nov 2004 18:15:05 -0600, "Greg Butler"
wrote:


No, a fact is an invariant. If you take a poll and then take another
poll, you'll get a different result. That isn't factual, sorry.

Actually a poll is a statement of fact: the people polled did in fact say
what the poll says. The problem arises with how you extend the poll to
represent the unpolled.

And whether those being polled told the truth. I wouldn't and many
told them their vote was private. I think it's becoming trendy to lie
to the pollsters.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
...
Earl Grieda wrote:

However, since the meaning of words do evolve then it certainly is
possible that what this person claims is true. But in that case we
need to use the definition of "Arms" as it was defined when the Bill
of Rights was written.

I agree. Private ownership of cannons was fairly common on those days
and they were about the biggest and baddest weapons available to anyone
then.


Do you have any reference to prove that cannon ownership was common in those
days? Fairly common would constitute an ownership percentage greater than
50% of the population.

Earl G

Greg Butler wrote:

No, a fact is an invariant. If you take a poll and then take another
poll, you'll get a different result. That isn't factual, sorry.


Actually a poll is a statement of fact: the people polled did in fact say
what the poll says. The problem arises with how you extend the poll to
represent the unpolled.



Which is the entire purpose of a poll, so I think that is a given. And,
yes, I agree that herein lies the problem.


Matt

Peter Duniho wrote:

"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
...

No, a fact is an invariant.


Really?

So, a statement regarding the position of the sun during the day isn't a
fact? After all, it varies continuously throughout the day.

Yes, that is a fact because it includes the element of time. If you
take two polls at the same time in the same place you will get two
different answers.


You have an odd definition of what's a "fact".

Much better than yours though.


Matt

Earl Grieda wrote:

"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
...

Earl Grieda wrote:

However, since the meaning of words do evolve then it certainly is
possible that what this person claims is true. But in that case we
need to use the definition of "Arms" as it was defined when the Bill
of Rights was written.

I agree. Private ownership of cannons was fairly common on those days
and they were about the biggest and baddest weapons available to anyone
then.



Do you have any reference to prove that cannon ownership was common in those
days? Fairly common would constitute an ownership percentage greater than
50% of the population.

Do you own homework. And learn what common means. Pipers are common
light airplanes, yet they constitute far less than 50% of the fleet.

Matt

"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
...
Please provide a referance to back up your etymological evolution of
these
terms.

Earl G.



That would be a reference, with three e's. Since you are too lazy to do
your own research, here's a little to get you started:

http://www.constitution.org/mil/cs_milit.htm

http://www.post-gazette.com/forum/20001008edkelly5.asp

http://www.nitewavesherrym.com/militia/militia.html


Do you think you can handle "well regulated" on your own?

Think of a grandfather clock; see the word "Regulated" on the face?, it
doesn't mean it was approved by the Ministry of Clocks.

No, I just don't see them the same way you do. You can SCREAM in capital
letters all you want and decide that I'm suffering from a terminal case of
cognitive dissonance, but that's not a very mature response, now is it?


Naw,,, did NOT scream in capital letters grin!

Perhaps Republicans in Utah are just as touchy as liberals in Cambridge
and
Berkeley. All that ideological conformity makes these places into
ideological veal pens. God forbid you ever have to venture outside that
bubble.

Please don't even get me started on Berkeley (sometimes I wish they would be
declared a separate state so that their questionable actions/ideas would be
associated with Californians as a whole.

I was born in Chicago, but from 1 y.o. and on lived in San Francisco. I'm
fully aware that venturing outside California is quite different, but that
doesn't make the observation that bigotry exists any less true. I know when
I've been in the South, I was surprised that many of the old attitudes have
never left, just that they've gone a little more underground (regarding
blacks). It IS like night and day between California and some other states
regarding attitudes towards same-sex unions - I was just trying to point out
that having a gay person or couple in your neighborhood isn't going to 'turn
you' or your children gay. Just isn't going to happen. Not necessarily
true in your case,,, but I have noticed that those who are most vehement
against gays often turn out to be people who are struggling with their
certainty about their own sexuality.

Unfortunately, the gay citizens that get the most tv coverage here in San
Francisco are those that are more flamboyant in costume and dress during Gay
Pride celebrations. You'd find that most of the gay couples in our
neighborhood (as well as yours,,,, they likely stay 'hidden') just dress
like you and me, kiss a loved one on the way to work and aren't wearing pink
feathered costumes and a headdress. :0) I guess all I was saying is that I
don't understand the intolerance; I don't worry that my wife, my marriage or
child are at risk because of Gay people. I WILL say that the only persons
that worry me most in regards to my 9 year old stepson are Catholic Priests.
I DO keep my eye on them (though I understand that most are just fine - but
I watch out as much as possible)... but that is another issue altogether.

--
--
=-----
Good Flights!

Cecil
PP-ASEL-IA
Student - CP-ASEL

Check out my personal flying adventures from my first flight to the
checkride AND the continuing adventures beyond!
Complete with pictures and text at: www.bayareapilot.com

"I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things."
- Antoine de Saint-Exupery -

"We who fly, do so for the love of flying. We are alive in the air with
this miracle that lies in our hands and beneath our feet"
- Cecil Day Lewis -
"C Kingsbury" wrote in message
nk.net...
I'm the original poster and I approve this response.

"Cecil Chapman" wrote in message
m...

freaks...... See this is what I mean about people like yourself,,, they
don't see the connections between their own observations.

Just like David Brooks, who decided he can't even deal with being in
the presence of people who voted for Bush.

Best,
-cwk.