Leaving the community

Jim Fisher wrote:

"Capt.Doug" wrote in message
Many people didn't vote for Bush as much as they voted against Edwards.

Just chiming in here but speak for yourself. I voted FOR Bush and utterly
against JOhn KErry.

I voted for Bush before I voted against John Kerry.

I'm not sure I agree... I think Gephardt lost out because of nothing
short of a lack of charisma. I don't think people were paying that much
attention to positions or character during the primaries, and there were
way too many people on the list to go very deep. But if he wasn't
charismatic enough to beat Kerry on the Primaries, I'm not sure he would
have had what it took to beat Bush either. After all, Gore lost on
charisma too.

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.

But we'll never really know...

The Democrats simply have to figure out a way to select their nominees
better, if they ever want to win the presidency. They've got to find
someone who hones closer to the beliefs of mainstream America, without
alienating their huge (and incredibly vocal) left wing. The Republicans
have figured this out -- I'm surprised the Democrats haven't.

If anything, they seem to be learning precisely the wrong lesson from this
loss, blaming Kerry for not being "Democrat" enough. This seems
ludicrous, given the mood of the nation (at least outside of the big
cities), and how diametrically opposed Kerry's positions were to what most
Americans want and believe.

Mark my words: If they nominate Hillary next time around -- as they appear
to be angling toward -- it will set the Democratic Party back 50 years.
They won't see the White House again in our lifetime.

And now, back to flying!
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Methinks you've confused me with another poster, Cecil, as I clearly am NOT
the guy who wrote:

I'm a pro-life, pro-gun, low-tax Republican living in Boston,
Massachusetts

When grade schoolers study traditional marriage in their schools, do those
courses talk about the various sexual positions the man and women get in,
and who gets to be on-top and the like? Of course, not. Mentioning that
Paul may love Sandy or Sandy may Love Jill and be a couple is all that's
mentioned - it's called tolerance for differences Jay.

Ya gotta keep your eye on that top line better...

It 'tweren't me that wrote what you are ascribing to me...
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Naw, I think he is just feeling a little frustrated. Personally I am just
grateful that Bush clearly had the popular vote (even if slim) so it
wasn't like 2000, made it a little easier to take. Though he still looks
like a chimp grin My candidate at least resembled a humanoid; Herman
Munster GRIN

THERE you go. That's the ticket.

It's time to laugh about it, have a beer, and get back to flying. This crap
is over for another four years...
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

"Cecil Chapman" wrote in message
m

When are we going to remember the line about 'separation of church and
state'.

Where is that line found?

Good point,,, you're right Kerry was clearly against tax breaks for
the wealthy, the group that Bush was caught referring to during a
private dinner that was videotaped and to whom he referred to as "My
own people" ---- Got that right, W. Thank goodness there was
someone looking out for the common man (and still is,,,, as a
Senator) as John Kerry.

Sorry, but you lose points on this issue. Kerry, *the* richest person in
Congress, paid less in 2003 taxes (both in percentage and in raw dollars)
than Bush (whose net worth is a fraction of Kerry's). Feel free to Google
for their 2003 tax returns and do the math. While you're at it, notice the
difference in charitable donations, too.

Face it: The Democrats have no base outside the urban areas of this country
and their values apparently are out of line with a majority of the voters.
They need to reconsider their platform if they want to appeal to American
voters again.

--
John T
http://tknowlogy.com/TknoFlyer
http://www.pocketgear.com/products_s...veloperid=4415
____________________

"Cecil Chapman" wrote in message
The gay population has become the new 'coloreds' - get over your
bigotry. Live and let live.

You pushed a button, Cecil. I see this kind of statement repeated with
sickening frequency

Comparing gay folks to "colored" people is just utter bullsquat. If I were
black, I'd smack people who say this upside the face. If you weren't such a
generally nice feller, this honkey would wanna smack you.

Black folks suffered brutally for hundreds of years right here in America.
Many still suffer today from generations of whip-toting, slave-owning,
water-cannon-wielding white folks denying them basic, God given,
Constitutional rights to equal treatment by their representative government.

Not one should is denying gay folks their constitutional rights to practice
their behavior in private . . . or even in public. They can vote. They can
get elected to office. They can hold powerful positions in the media and
corporate America.

Hell, they can even fly a high wing airplanes.

But they can't get married and they can't fly low wing planes. That's just
they way it is.

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.

--
Jim Fisher

*"Sexually aberrant" is defined as a behavior that is outside the norm.
Homosexuality might become a "normal" behavior in the distant future but for
now it is an aberration, pure and simple.

Michael
(A confirmed gun control advocate...)

Confirmed gun control is using two hands!

"Chris E" wrote in message ...
Jim Fisher wrote:

"Capt.Doug" wrote in message
Many people didn't vote for Bush as much as they voted against Edwards.

Just chiming in here but speak for yourself. I voted FOR Bush and
utterly
against JOhn KErry.

I voted for Bush before I voted against John Kerry.

Snicker!

"Cecil Chapman" wrote in message
m

But don't let intelligence or logic, pry you away from your blissful
ignorance.

It's interesting that the vast majority of the people I hear use this line
(and similar bumper stickers like "Think: It's patriotic.") are quite
liberal. As if they're the only ones capable of reason and logic and
challenging assumptions.

Like oil. It would have been far, far cheaper for us to simply buy the oil
from the "oil for food" program than to invade Iraq if oil were our goal.
For that matter, why not Venezuela? If oil were the goal, Venezuela is
*much* closer to the US and has a less imposing military. *Think* for a
moment and tell me it's logical for us to invade a hostile country half a
globe away for oil when we have oil exporters in our own hemisphere.

No, it sounds Moore like you're toeing the party line.

I hope one day, people like you will learn to challenge
and learn more about what they are told as fact FROM ANY SOURCE,,,
then we will REALLY have a great Nation.

Well, at least we can agree that voters should be educated on the issues and
not just follow the party line.

A mind is truly a terrible thing to waste..........

You just had to throw in that elitist attitude again. Just when you were
showing some reason, too.

Your guy lost. By a significant margin. Get over it and go flying.

--
John T
http://tknowlogy.com/TknoFlyer
http://www.pocketgear.com/products_s...veloperid=4415
____________________

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.

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?

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

Best,
-cwk.