Leaving the community

On Thu, 04 Nov 2004 14:13:47 GMT, "Jay Honeck"
wrote:

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.

Well, Jay, I half agree with you. I do not agree that America is
ready to elect a woman president/vp but I absolutely agree that *when*
it finally does happen, it will be a conservative Republican. I also
agree that Hillary is a very intelligent woman who is patently
unelectable (at least in the context of the offices that we're talking
about).

Just so there is no confusion on my position: when I say the country
is not ready, I am not espousing that as my personal position. I
don't have any problem with a woman president.
Rich Russell

kontiki writes:

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".

If people's concerns about the 2nd amendment _did_ have anything to do
with hunting then Bush would have lost -- Bush is doing a great job at
letting logging and oil companies into wildnerness where they were
previously not allowed, and this tends to reduce the number of
beautiful places where folks can enjoy hunting.

Chris
--
Chris Colohan Email: PGP: finger
Web: www.colohan.com Phone: (412)268-4751

Cecil Chapman wrote:

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).

One of the good things about the U.S. is that I don't have to prove a "need" for
something in order to own it. At least that's the way it's supposed to be. In any
case, you obviously have no idea of the capabilities or limitations of an 8mm round
or of deer hunting.

Your police friends are correct about home defense. A shotgun is definitely preferred
over a rifle.

George Patterson
If a man gets into a fight 3,000 miles away from home, he *had* to have
been looking for it.

"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.

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.

tb

"Mike Rapoport" wrote in message link.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.

Which would explain why he pushed a taxcut package on calculations
based on those surpluses.

tb

Then sell your car(s) and your airplane... and your snowmobile... boat too.
Lawnmower and chainsaw while you are at it. Of course you won't need
medicine or anything made of plastic either.

Sell it all and move to the wilderness in a tent and live totally off the
land then I might take your rant seriously. Most American voters felt that
Kerry's campaign speeches (Vs. his actions and lifestyle) demostrated the
same level hypocracy.

Christopher Brian Colohan wrote:
If people's concerns about the 2nd amendment _did_ have anything to do
with hunting then Bush would have lost -- Bush is doing a great job at
letting logging and oil companies into wildnerness where they were
previously not allowed, and this tends to reduce the number of
beautiful places where folks can enjoy hunting.

Chris

Judah wrote:

snip


No, I think the biggest problem in this election was simply that there
was not much difference at all between the two candidates, or if there
was, it was so clouded by nonessential issues that the general public was
left to vote on whether they are more comfortable with or without change,
and not much else.

I think you've hit it exactly right.

If there is one thing I that both sides agree on it is the lack of real,
open discourse on real issues. The "two party" system is really just one
big self serving machine.

One thing that will improve the situation is for all of us "we the people"
to work to allow more third party ideas into the debate. It does us all a
great disservice when not all the voices are heard.

I heard some good ideas from several of the third party candidates (and some
pretty looney ones too). Injecting them into the mix might have forced
Kerry/Bush to be more specific. It certainly would go a long way to
"un-polarizing" the country.

snip

--
Frank....H

Christopher Brian Colohan wrote:

If people's concerns about the 2nd amendment _did_ have anything to do
with hunting then Bush would have lost -- Bush is doing a great job at
letting logging and oil companies into wildnerness where they were
previously not allowed, and this tends to reduce the number of
beautiful places where folks can enjoy hunting.

Well, Kerry has supported several pieces of legislation that closed large areas to
hunting of any sort. In addition, logging tends to open up areas for hunting -- I
used to hunt an area in Georgia that was periodically logged for paper pulp. We used
the logging roads to get in. I expect the hunting would have been pretty lousy for a
few years after they cut, though.

George Patterson
If a man gets into a fight 3,000 miles away from home, he *had* to have
been looking for it.

Cecil Chapman wrote:

snip

?, gay marriage

He stated he was against 'gay marriage' - but in favor of civil unions
that allowed long-time gay couples the right to visit their partner in the
hospital, claims to benefits, etc. This is something that I would think
any reasonable person would think a long-time couple would be entitled to
(regardless of the sexual orientation. You know the funny thing about this
kind of bigotry is that it reminds me of what we would hear in the 60's
"Can't let 'coloreds' have any rights and god-forbid they should be
allowed
to marry white-folk". Jeesh,,, doesn't anyone EVER learn from the lessons
of the past.

snip

You're right in your sentiments but like many, misguided by the hype.

It's time we owned up to the real issue(s). It's not about "gay marriage",
it's about whether or not one should be able to marry the one he/she loves.
It's also about whether or not the government should be in the marriage
business at all.

In that regard the Bush campaign clearly clouded the issue. Kerry never said
he was for "gay marriage". Just for civil unions ( a legitimate role for
government considering the way benefits are doled out) and against a
constitutional ammendment. But, just like the Iraq-9/11 connection, most
people believe what they want to.


--
Frank....H

John T wrote:

"Cecil Chapman" wrote in message
m

snip

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.

And clearly stated that he was against the tax cuts even though he benefited
from them. In fact he was, in effect, advocating raising his own taxes.

And while we're on the subject of Kerry's (Theresa's) wealth.... I will
never understand why this was seen as such a negative. He came upon it
honorably. More important, it insulates him from some of the special
interest pressure. After all, how do you bribe a wealthy man?

snip
--
Frank....H