Leaving the community

On Wed, 3 Nov 2004 17:44:52 -0500, "Icebound"
wrote:


"C Kingsbury" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
news:k_bid.351511$MQ5.252777@attbi_s52...
...snip...
The moral for the Democrats: Don't ever nominate an ultra liberal to run
for president again.

Hillary Clinton.

...snip...
My dream team is Giuliani-Rice. ...snip...

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???...


This is a sad comment to make in the greatest country in the world,
but my sense is that any party that nominates a woman for president or
vice-president has conceded the election before it starts. For
reasons that I cannot fathom, this country is not even close to being
ready for that scenario. We'll accept female governors, supreme court
justices, CEO's, etc, but not president or vp. We are way behind the
rest of the world in that regard.

Rich Russell

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.

Well put, Jim.

Black Americans are not comfortable with this comparison, as you state. In
fact, NPR recently did a piece on the "black vote" and discovered a larger
than ever percentage of blacks voting Republican, precisely because of this
issue.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

This is a sad comment to make in the greatest country in the world,
but my sense is that any party that nominates a woman for president or
vice-president has conceded the election before it starts.

I disagree. I think America is MORE than ready to elect a conservative
Republican woman president/vice-president.

But Hillary? Never. She polarizes everyone she meets -- there is no middle
ground with her, in large part due to her husband's "legacy."

It's kind of a shame, cuz she's a bright woman in many ways.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Actually, no. The 2nd amendment says "arms". Doesn't mention firearms at
all. So you can have swords, spears, bows and arrows :-)

Even if it's assumed that firearms were intended (and I believe they were),
the founding fathers were thinking of the arms of the time. I have no
problem with anyone owning and bearing all the muzzle loading flintlocks
they want.

I'll even concede percussion-cap muzzle-loaders and paper cartridge
breach-loaders, but no one NEEDs to own an assault rifle or machine gun for
personal use. Uncle supplies those free of charge for the military, which
is now the militia the framers intended; we no longer need an civilian one.

--
Bob (Chief Pilot, White Knuckle Airways)

I don't have to like Bush and Cheney (Or Kerry, for that matter) to love
America

"Richard Hertz" no one@no one.com wrote in message
et...

Please, the 2nd ammendment says I have the right to firearms, not just the
ones that some folks say are ok.

And I tend to be a true liberal......If you ain't hurting anyone and
want to do it, go for it. Wanna own a full auto assault weapon, fine.
Just don't murder anyone. (I do and I haven't) Wanna fly, don't fly
into a building with 500 lbs of TNT. (I do and I don't)
Have a cigarette!....
Chug a bottle of Jack Daniels!....
Smoke a joint!...
Shoot some heroin!.....
No Problem, but I don't WANT to pay for your rehab.
Wanna drive 150 mph, don't crash into a school bus.
Gay......Keep your f**kin' hands off my ass.
Etc. Etc. Etc.

"I want" has made this a great country. A true liberal hates all
regulation of
anything that does not directly, and absolutely, hurt anyone. Owning
a Howitzer
hurts nobody, lobbing a shell into a neighbors house does.

Actually you just described a true "Libertarian".

www.lp.org

Howard Nelson wrote:
Ya know. I think David actually left. Not a bad troll through muddy waters
however.

IMO the election was a contest between the people pulling the wagon and the
people riding in the wagon. Luckily 51% of the people were pulling the wagon
so it will probably keep moving (perfect wagon with no losses to friction
etc.). Once 51% or greater are riding in the wagon then it will only move
downhill.

Howard


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.788 / Virus Database: 533 - Release Date: 11/1/2004



What do you base this on? If we analyze the tax receipts of states who
voted for W and the ones that voted for Kerry, we'll see that those darn
Kerry supportin' states are sitting in the wagon waiting for us to pull
them along while generating the VAST MAJORITY of taxes!

I haven't done an analysis for this year yet (obviously, since the year
isn't over and the data isn't there yet) but I do have the numbers for
the 2000 contest. Since we had essentially the same red/blue map, this
is still telling. The bottom line?

Total tax receipts from states that voted for each candidate, in $millions:
Go $1,202,891,545
Bush: $873,151,976

SOURCE: 2000 IRS Data Book, Publication 55b. Also Chief Financial
Officer, Revenue Accounting, Office of Revenue Systems N:CFO:R.

Who's pulling the cart?

I have the excel sheet if you'd like to dig in yourself.

What amazes me is that the people in the red states simply haven't
realized how much they are shooting themselves in the foot by supporting
Bush's tax cuts. Most of that money stayed in the blue states!

Unless the people in the red states really think that the money is
distributed according to contribution, they should be careful what they
wish for when they want to "get the gubmint off our back". If the
gubmint does this, they're going to need to provide a hell of a lot more
faith based social services than they are right now. There will be a lot
of destitute farmers, and the suburbanites will NOT like the state of
their highway systems. The urban folks will have even crappier schools
and rising crime rates. But the gubmint won't be on their backs!

It irks me when I hear that this election was decided on values and
morals, suggesting that Bush has a monopoly on morality. In fact, I
argue that the majority of people in the blue states hold moral values
that make financing social programs that improve the poor's situation
more important than lower taxes. They hold moral values that recognize
honesty with the American people on issues of war and peace to be
important. They also hold moral values that place civil rights and due
process in our justice system to be sacred. All moral choices that the
president doesn't agree with me and about half the people that voted.

I am a left leaning centrist on social issues and consider myself to be
a fiscal conservative. When a Republican president irritates me this
much, I really am concerned for the country. After this election there
won't be much in terms of a moderating political force, and historically
that can lead to some pretty hairy situation.

-Aviv

Oh yeah, I remember photo shoots of Bill Clinton's "hunting trip"
also... in a futile attempt to convince people that he was a "hunter'.


The fact is that the 2nd amendment has nothing to do with hunting. It
does not enumerate a "right to hunt".

Cecil Chapman wrote:
Guns
He's a hunter, I'm pretty sure they use guns for that (he's not a
bowhunter).

"Martin Hotze" wrote in message
...
[x-posting deleted]

"C Kingsbury" wrote:

Still, I've managed to become and remain friends with quite a few of
these
people because I realize that they're not actually bad people, just
misguided.
^^^^^^^^^^

so they need to pray for their sins? or what? how do you come to the
conclusion
that they are misguided? and why are they misguided?

Example: Social Security reform. They think people like me want to privatize
Social Security because we're greedy rich white men trying to screw the poor
yet again. Then I explain how said privatization actually has its greatest
potential net benefits for lower-class blacks, who the current system screws
terribly much of the time. Much of the time the argument then shifts from
"You're evil" to "But that can't possibly work and here's why."

The first argument is pointless and stupid. The second is politics, and
offers a chance to find common ground.

-cwk.

Bob Chilcoat wrote:
I'll even concede percussion-cap muzzle-loaders and paper cartridge
breach-loaders, but no one NEEDs to own an assault rifle or machine gun for
personal use.

Then to apply your logic to aviation "no one NEEDs to own an airplane or
or especially a restored military aircraft for personal use."

The problem with liberals is that they *say* they are for choice and
have the patent on tolerance. That's only true as long as the opposing
views do not conflict with their own.

As a free individual I will be the one to determine what my "needs"
are, and not anyone else. This is one of ther many fundamental differences
between liberals and conservatives.

If you look up the definition of "fascist" you will see that is closely
describes the philosophy of the Democratic party.

Then we should require everyone who enters a theater to apply duct tape to
their mouths *in case* some tries to yell "fire".

Liberals always use that argument... except that to make an honest analogy
to restrictions on the 2nd amendment (Vs. the 1st) they would require everyone
who enters a theater to apply duct tape to their mouths *just in case* someone
tried to yell "fire".


Martin Hotze wrote:

So then walk into a crowded theater and shout "fire". Then let's check your
right to free speech again. :-)


#m