Leaving the community

Cecil, I suggest you read the legislation.

I have a simple .22 rifle. By using a 6" dowel rod, some duct tape, and
the cardboard tube from the center of a roll of toilet paper, I can make it
into a dreaded "assault rifle" of the type addressed in the law that just
expired.

You really should read the law itself, instead of what the Brady people are
saying about it.


Cecil Chapman wrote:
He's opposed to private ownership of any firearm except shotguns plugged
to three
shells. And just where in the Constitution exactly is hunting mentioned?
He prattles
about "military-style assault weapons" while trying to ban
semi-automatics, knowing
full well that no military-style assault weapon is semi-automatic.


Have you actually read his voting record and what types of weapons each
respective legislation was referring to? Evidently, not!

In rec.aviation.piloting Jay Honeck wrote:
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.

I agree, but Gebhardt was never gonna be the answer. He's way too boring.
He has no carisma. There was no way he would have been able to win.


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.

The problem is that the "Party" (ie, the party leadership) doesn't
neccessarily pick the nominee. A group of individuals decide to run, and
then the primaries pick the nominee.

--- Jay



--
__!__
Jay and Teresa Masino ___(_)___
http://www2.ari.net/jmasino ! ! !
http://www.oceancityairport.com
http://www.oc-adolfos.com

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.

No matter how you slice it however, the endless litany of complaints,
criticisms and Monday morning quarterbacking that cam out of Kerry's
mouth is what turned a lot of people off. Anybody can bitch about stuff.

Kerry had 20 years in the senate to do some constructive things what the
hell was he doing all that time (besides wind-surfing and playing golf).



Peter Duniho wrote:

I can't speak for where Bob's coming from, but the truth remains that for
the most part, people who voted for Bush don't actually have their facts
straight. This is not disputable.

Pete

As someone who also voted for Kerry (not with much enthusiasm, though) my I add
my comment, "Don't let the door hit your ass on the way out."

What a bunch of baby boy crap to post on an IFR flying forum.

David Brooks wrote:

One thing - one of so very many things - I learned in my five years of
flying is that partisan politics does not fit into the cockpit. Most of my
flight instructors have, I know, been to the right of me politically. I had
a most enjoyable flight with CJ - although he has since earned my undying
enmity by unapologetically using the term "Final Solution" in connection
with me and people like me, an astonishing thought coming from an avowedly
religious man, but telling and apt.

But now it seems the nation has, albeit by a slim margin, re-elected a weak,
hypocritical, murderous coward. Three years ago, when some writers on the
left started talking about fascism, I thought that an absurd stretch. No
longer. The parallels are not precise - they never are - but the broad sweep
and many of the components of a new fascist state are in place. The 48% who
didn't vote for this disaster keep knocking on my consciousness, but they
are now feeble and impotent. The thugs are in charge.

That being so, and despite what should be an apolitical setting, I can no
longer in good faith keep company with a group of which the majority, I
know, has elected to deliver the country I love, and chose as my home, into
the hands of Bush and his repressive, regressive masters.

So long. Thanks for all the conversations. You guys have made me a better
pilot.

-- David Brooks

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"

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).

I think you WAY over estimate the power a president actually has. Probably
because you actually listen to all they promise.



-Robert


"David Brooks" wrote in message
...
One thing - one of so very many things - I learned in my five years of
flying is that partisan politics does not fit into the cockpit. Most of my
flight instructors have, I know, been to the right of me politically. I
had
a most enjoyable flight with CJ - although he has since earned my undying
enmity by unapologetically using the term "Final Solution" in connection
with me and people like me, an astonishing thought coming from an avowedly
religious man, but telling and apt.

But now it seems the nation has, albeit by a slim margin, re-elected a
weak,
hypocritical, murderous coward. Three years ago, when some writers on the
left started talking about fascism, I thought that an absurd stretch. No
longer. The parallels are not precise - they never are - but the broad
sweep
and many of the components of a new fascist state are in place. The 48%
who
didn't vote for this disaster keep knocking on my consciousness, but they
are now feeble and impotent. The thugs are in charge.

That being so, and despite what should be an apolitical setting, I can no
longer in good faith keep company with a group of which the majority, I
know, has elected to deliver the country I love, and chose as my home,
into
the hands of Bush and his repressive, regressive masters.

So long. Thanks for all the conversations. You guys have made me a better
pilot.

-- David Brooks

In article ,
"G.R. Patterson III" wrote:


He's opposed to private ownership of any firearm except shotguns plugged to
three
shells. And just where in the Constitution exactly is hunting mentioned? He
prattles
about "military-style assault weapons" while trying to ban semi-automatics,
knowing
full well that no military-style assault weapon is semi-automatic.

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,
and we aren't talking anything armor-piercing here.


Want to give us a few details, just for the record, about the "well
regulated militia" to which you, personally, belong? (given your focus
on the Constitution, I assume you do) -- Name, location where it's
registered, number of members, just who it's "well regulated" by, that
sort of thing?