If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#121
|
|||
|
|||
"Brien K. Meehan" wrote in message oups.com... Don't forget to take your Kool-Aid with you. Cold-blooded. I like it. |
#122
|
|||
|
|||
"Adam K." wrote in message om... Whoa, Nelly! Slow down. I've never voted Republican in my life. Take me with you. ak You must be one of those "Independents" I keep hearing about. |
#123
|
|||
|
|||
Mike Rapoport wrote:
To be fair, the only reason that there was a surplus is because the country got caught up in a technology stock mania. The market was generating trillions of short term gains and taxes on those gains is what swelled federal and state coffers. Bush entered the white house with millions of taxpayers carrying forward losses. But those coffers were swelled. That some were carrying losses is a separate issue. Unless you think it was up to the government to make those losses go away. -- Frank....H |
#124
|
|||
|
|||
"Terry Bolands" wrote in message
om... "Jim Fisher" wrote in message . .. But they can't get married and they can't fly low wing planes. That's just they way it is. It's not "just the way it is". You can feel it is wrong if you want, but it's not an innate truism that gay people can't get married. Ahh, but it is a truism if one accept the absolute fact that "marraige" has been recognized for thousands of years as a religous tenant. We aren't talking "unions" but marraige. Governemental support of a marraige between a man and a woman and, thus, protection of the familial unit is supported and recognized beacause such support has historically contributed to to overall, long-term survival of governing bodies. Man+man and woman+woman does NOT a stable family make and does a government absolutely no good. This makes it a truism, Terry. You don't have to like it but a rational person cannot deny it. To say that "Denying sexually aberrant citizens 'marital' status is akin to human rights abuses endured by black Americans" is an affront to my, and your, intelligence. Why call it sexually aberrant? I agree, that is an affront to your intelligence. "ab·er·rant (br-nt, -br,-) adj. 1.. Deviating from the proper or expected course. 2.. Deviating from what is normal; untrue to type. Man+woman - Expected and even proper. Man+man - Untrue to type Gay+high wing: Expected and proper. Straight+low wing: Expected and proper Woman+Woman - I don't necessarily have a problem with this (marriage or adoptive rights-wise) but it is still aberrant. Until the gay population becomes a significant portion of the population, gay behavior will be considered "abnormal" and "aberrant." You don't have to like that fact but it is axiomatic. -- Jim Fisher |
#125
|
|||
|
|||
Laura Clayton wrote:
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. I agree it is wrong to insult their intelligence. It is/was very difficult to make informed decisions given the lack of real journalism available. But Bush plain old did a bad job and was not held accountable for it. He bungled Iraq. He pandered to big money special interests. He set new heights of secrecy in government. But most of all his supporters were willing to overlook the fact that on 9/12/01 the whole world was with us and two years later you can hardly find anyone that will talk to us on a diplomatic level. -- Frank....H |
#126
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#127
|
|||
|
|||
In rec.aviation.ifr Jim Fisher wrote:
Ahh, but it is a truism if one accept the absolute fact that "marraige" has been recognized for thousands of years as a religous tenant. So True. But arn't we supposed to have a separation of church and state? If thats the case what's the state doing in the marriage business? Governemental support of a marraige between a man and a woman and, thus, protection of the familial unit is supported and recognized beacause such support has historically contributed to to overall, long-term survival of governing bodies. I've heard this arguement before. It usually infers that marriage needs to be governmentally supported for the protection of the children in the marriage. If you agree to this, then do you agree that the hetrosexual couples who can't/won't have children need to have the licenses revoked? Man+man and woman+woman does NOT a stable family make and does a government absolutely no good. Depends upon your definition of stable family. Its a poor sampling, but right now the divorce rate between legally married gay couples is a lot less than hetrosexual couples. -- Frank Stutzman Bonanza N494B "Hula Girl" Hood River, OR |
#128
|
|||
|
|||
"Jay Honeck" wrote in message news:K7iid.294493$wV.71039@attbi_s54...
I agree with you there, but it's my belief that Bush was ideologically vulnerable, and that a guy closer to the center (ala Gebhardt) would have at least grabbed enough of the popular vote (and people like me, who weren't 100% enthused with Bush) to have tipped the scales his way. If either party is able to nominate a centerist, they have an excellent shot at the presidency. The problem is that both parties are largely influenced by their more extreme factions. In the primary system, these folks are the ones who have the most influence (and money) to determine who will ultimately represent their party. Also, look at the difference in voter participation between primaries and general elections. You know that the hard-core left and right is going to participate, but I'll wager that the center is under-represented at that stage. What you end up with in a general election is usually a choice between the least scary of two extremes. In this past election, a strong centerist candiate (from either party) would have resulted in a landslide, rather that what we got. John Galban=====N4BQ (PA28-180) |
#129
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#130
|
|||
|
|||
"kontiki" wrote in message
... If this is true, It is true. Factual reports provide the facts, polls provide the information regarding what people believe. 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. Perhaps. As far as I know, there is no polling data on that. However, there are "little lies" and there are "big lies". IMHO, "big lies" are the ones where thousands of people die. Kerry hasn't made any of those "big lies". Pete |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Report Leaving Assigned Altitude? | John Clonts | Instrument Flight Rules | 81 | March 20th 04 02:34 PM |