Leaving the community

On 11/3/04 7:17 PM, in article , "Blanche"
wrote:


On the other hand, if Rehnquist resigns, Sandra Day O'Connor is next
in line for Chief Justice of the Supremes! But as one pundit said today,
she's already got huge power as the swing vote all the time.



Chief Justice is designated by the President, and is not always the one with
the longest tenure. I wouldn't set my hopes on a Chief Justice O'Connor if I
were you. Since she's already in her 70's, I'd put my money on one that will
be around a bit longer.
--
Jeff 'The Wizard of Draws' Bucchino
Cartoons with a Touch of Magic�
http://www.wizardofdraws.com
http://www.cartoonclipart.com

Newps wrote:


Matt Whiting wrote:



I'm thinking of moving to a state like yours (SD, right?).


Montana. The democrats here couldn't get elected as republicans in
Pennsylvania. They'd be too far to the right.


I've lived

in PA all my life, but it is becoming such a liberal cesspool that I
may have to retire elsewehere.


A Wyoming address would be good and even more conservative than here. No
taxes.

Why are all of the conservatives states in places that are cold in the
winter? My grandfather always said that the cold winters "kept the
riff-raff out" and I'm beginning to think he was right. :-)


Matt

Cecil Chapman wrote:

Guns
He's a hunter, I'm pretty sure they use guns for that (he's not a
bowhunter). Just because one doesn't support ownership of AK-47's and
public access to armor-piercing bullets doesn't make one an enemy to gun
ownership. In fact, his record as a senator reveals that he has
consistently supported appropriate gun ownership. I own two shotguns and a
couple of rifles - don't hunt, but skeet and target shoot. Even still, I
just don't think the average citizen needs armor-piercing bullets or AK-47's
(unless you live in remote parts of Alaska grin)/.

He's only a hunter when there is a camera around. His comments about
hunting show that he hasn't a clue about hunting. Funny, I don't recall
the second amendment ever mentioning hunting, or "appropriate" gun
ownership. You must have a different constitution than I have.

Kerry is so hypocritical he makes even Bill Clinton look like an honest man.


Matt

Cecil Chapman wrote:

Oh, so know disagreeing with you means one is ignorant rather than a
puppet. You are starting to sound like Kerry.


Unfortunately Kerry never said that. But, yes,,, one is truly ignorant, if
they mindlessly espouse the words and ideas of others without ever having
challenged those ideas, themselves.

Every thing you wrote was, literally, the same campaign rhetoric we have
heard from Bush.... The Kerry account is absurd,,, I spoke, at length, with
one of the individuals who served under Kerry. How you could defend a draft
dodger, like Bush; cowardly clinging onto the tails of daddy to get him out
of harms way and into the National Guard is something I cannot help.

I never defended Bushes military record. I simply stated my opinion of
Kerry's.


Of course, some people think cocaine use, alcoholism and DUI are just fine
examples of a human being and would make FINE presidential material and
moral fiber - Obviously, my ethical bar is higher than your standard....
sad,,, but to each his own I suppose.

Yes, but Kerry didn't get elected so we don't have to worry about any of
the above with respect to our president.


Matt

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!

--
--
=-----
Good Flights!

Cecil
PP-ASEL-IA
Student - CP-ASEL

Check out my personal flying adventures from my first flight to the
checkride AND the continuing adventures beyond!
Complete with pictures and text at: www.bayareapilot.com

"I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things."
- Antoine de Saint-Exupery -

"We who fly, do so for the love of flying. We are alive in the air with
this miracle that lies in our hands and beneath our feet"
- Cecil Day Lewis -

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

--
--
=-----
Good Flights!

Cecil
PP-ASEL-IA
Student - CP-ASEL

Check out my personal flying adventures from my first flight to the
checkride AND the continuing adventures beyond!
Complete with pictures and text at: www.bayareapilot.com

"I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things."
- Antoine de Saint-Exupery -

"We who fly, do so for the love of flying. We are alive in the air with
this miracle that lies in our hands and beneath our feet"
- Cecil Day Lewis -

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 think where Kerry blew it worst is that he never really recovered from
the whole "flip-flop" persona. He had opportunities to. But basically,
his only comeback was to say that he misspoke when he talked about
"voting for it before voting against it." From a public perception, he
was saying that he made a mistake by poorly describing his flip-flopping,
but never actually addressed the issue of flip-flopping itself.

He didn't focus (as I think he should have) on the reality that
sometimes it is better to change your opinion in light of new facts than
to hold firm to a lie. He could have very easily turned the whole thing
around and put Bush in a defensive position - either the President of the
United States had the wool pulled over his eyes by his own intelligence
agency and is incompetent, or he had hidden motives and went into Iraq
based on a lie and pulled the wool over the eyes of the American people
and is undeserving. Instead, he left his own trustworthiness unaddressed,
and the public just didn't trust him. It didn't help, either, that he
constantly spoke about how he had a "better plan" for Iraq, but never
really qualified that with what the plan was... Basically it left his
credibility completely in question.

Either way, I think this is a much more serious issue than stem cell
research, or Gay Marraige. I strongly suspect that what the news media is
labelling "Moral Values" is not about the latter issues nearly as much as
about just general credibility. I guess liberals like me prefer to give
Kerry a chance, rather than let Bush go on pulling the wool over our eyes
(or allowing it to be pulled over our eyes by his staff). Where
conservatives would rather have someone they are comfortable with in
office than give the new, unpredictable guy a chance, especially if he
has shown he might not be perfect either.


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.


"Jay Honeck" wrote in
news:k_bid.351511$MQ5.252777@attbi_s52:

These people are mad Kerry didn't run a liberal campaign and can't
stand that he "was just as pro-war as Bush."

That is SO ironic.

If the Democrats has nominated a middle-of-the-road guy to run against
Bush -- say, Dick Gephardt -- this election would not have even been
close. The Democrats would have swept the nation, and never by less
than 25 percentage points.

Stupidly, they nominated a guy whose political positions were to the
left of Ted Kennedy's, absolutely ensuring a Bush victory.

There were many traditional Republicans out here -- myself included --
who would have voted for a conservative Democrat in this election. But
there was just no way for any of us to vote for a guy like Kerry.

The moral for the Democrats: Don't ever nominate an ultra liberal to
run for president again.

Bob Chilcoat wrote:

I absolutely agree with you, Jay. Yet again, I had to vote AGAINST a
candidate, rather than FOR one. I just thought Kerry was the least-bad
candidate. When Bush opens his mouth, or just looks at the camera, for that
matter, the back of my hair goes up. What thinking individual could vote
FOR this idiot. I guess my version of the least-bad candidate was the same
as only 49.9% of the rest of the country.

Apparently you can fool 50% of the people, but there is always a noise
function.

I've often wondered why some people feel the need to insult the intelligence of
their fellow voters who simply do not agree with their world views. Different
people have different experiences in their life, and some people even study
macroeconomics in depth. And the same treatment is given to candidates.
Although he has his moments, everyone knows Bush isn't a great orator, but he
sure isn't an idiot either.

Finally, the notion that somebody can't share in a newsgroup because some other
people in the same group have a different political leaning is reminiscent of
early childhood mentality. Hopefully this person will reconsider, perhaps after
sleeping on it.

"Bob Chilcoat" wrote in message -
Yet again, I had to vote AGAINST a
candidate, rather than FOR one.

Many people didn't vote for Bush as much as they voted against Edwards.
Having a trial lawyer a heartbeat away from the presidency was the greater
evil for many voters. As I recall, it was trial lawyers that managed to wipe
out piston-engine airplane production for over a decade.

D.

Capt.Doug ) wrote:

Many people didn't vote for Bush as much as they voted against Edwards.
Having a trial lawyer a heartbeat away from the presidency was the greater
evil for many voters. As I recall, it was trial lawyers that managed to wipe
out piston-engine airplane production for over a decade.

Amen to that.

--
Peter