Leaving the community

"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.

--
Jim Fisher

Cecil Chapman wrote:

P.S. You're right, we should all thank Mr. Bush for turning a hard-earned
surplus budget (earned under Clinton's rule) into a 4.3 trillion dollar
DEFICIT.

The surplus budget was a scam, since much of that income turned out to be
losses due to technology speculation, rampant unchecked corporate fraud in the
late 90s, and even during the "surplus" social security monies were still
being siphoned off. The Nasdaq market peaked Jan 2000, and NYSE was dropping
steadily after March 2000,well before Bush was in office. Also keep in mind
that Bush had nothing to do with FY 2001 budget, which was in effect through
30 Sep 2001. The deficit did have much to do with an attack that happened on
Sept 2001, you may recall it, and the war on the terrorists. More attacks and
there wouldn't be much of an economy to worry about deficits. I don't recall
FDR holding off entering the WWII after Pearl Harbor because of worrying about
current deficits. We all remember the deficit scare stories from the 1980s,
and as the economy grew and expanded in time, the tax revenue came back in.
Deficits now are not extraordinary when properly compared to GDP, historically
speaking. Current GDP growth is about 4.3%, showing strong growth, especially
when compared with other Western nations, such as Germany, that hope, hope for
GDP growth in the 0.2% range this year.

Also remember a deficit is a flow concept, not a stock concept that can be
inherited.

Cecil Chapman wrote:

I have the right to own and fire my Mauser, and, as far as I'm concerned,
that
includes the right to be allowed to buy ammunition for it. Kerry tried to
ban that,

I almost forgot,,,,what for goodness sake do you need to be firing
ammunition as large as the type that the Mauser uses? Are the deer BIGGER
where you live,,, home protection, if that's what you are thinking, favors a
shotgun (that's per some cop friends, who would know).

But PLEASE tell me that you aren't one of those crazies that thinks that if
the "government takes over" its' citizens, you are going to be there like
Rambo to prevent it - if that's it,,, don't want to have to tell ya bub, but
you'll be easily outgunned and outmanned and be planted in the ground in
your tracks, faster than you can blink.

Then there are the Freudian possibilities regarding the subconscious need to
have BIG cartridges grin

The 2nd amendment speaks of the right to bear arms, not the right to bear arms
that are approved by certain folks. Similarily the 1st amendment provides right
to free speech to make remarks about all kinds of issues, not just certain
issues that some folks feel ok.

"Mike Rapoport" wrote in message
ink.net...
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.

Not fair, Mike. That studious observation is waaay to complicated for us
little people to grasp.

--
Jim Fisher

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.