Leaving the community

"Frank" wrote in message ...
I would never vote for Bush but I have nothing but respect for Colin
Powell

Are you talking about the same Colin Powell that got in front of the UN and
swore up and down that he had incontrovertible evidence of weapons of mass
destruction in Iraq?

he is the best asset this administration has (had?).

That's probably true. Damning with faint praise though.

Pete

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message news:K7iid.294493$wV.71039@attbi_s54...

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.

If either party is able to nominate a centerist, they have an
excellent shot at the presidency. The problem is that both parties
are largely influenced by their more extreme factions. In the primary
system, these folks are the ones who have the most influence (and
money) to determine who will ultimately represent their party. Also,
look at the difference in voter participation between primaries and
general elections. You know that the hard-core left and right is
going to participate, but I'll wager that the center is
under-represented at that stage. What you end up with in a general
election is usually a choice between the least scary of two extremes.

In this past election, a strong centerist candiate (from either
party) would have resulted in a landslide, rather that what we got.

John Galban=====N4BQ (PA28-180)

I agree with much of what you said except the below assessment:

Peter Duniho wrote:
But the real issue here is that the people who voted for Bush, on the whole,
simply either refuse to believe the factual reports that contradict
everything Bush claimed and claims, or failed to pay attention to those
reports when they were made.

If this is true, then I submit that people who voted for Kerry and Edwards
refused to believe any factual reports that contradicted many of their claims
as well. Kerry failed to make his case to the vast majority of America.
The exception was the Democratic bastions of the northeast and the left coast.
Those areas of the country would vote for the democratic candidate if it
was Alfred E. Newman, admit it!

When it is all said and done, most Americans felt like they could sleep
better at night voting for Bush (myself included). More of us were voting
*for* a ticket as opposed to *against* one.

"kontiki" wrote in message
...
If this is true,

It is true. Factual reports provide the facts, polls provide the
information regarding what people believe.

then I submit that people who voted for Kerry and Edwards
refused to believe any factual reports that contradicted many of their
claims as well.

Perhaps. As far as I know, there is no polling data on that. However,
there are "little lies" and there are "big lies". IMHO, "big lies" are the
ones where thousands of people die. Kerry hasn't made any of those "big
lies".

Pete

AES/newspost wrote:

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?

Using the definitions applicable at the time the Constitution was written, the 2nd
ammendment states that every citizen is allowed to own and carry arms because an
armed citizenry is necessary for the defense of the country. The word "militia" did
not begin to aquire it's current meaning of an adjunct of the U.S. military until the
War Between the States.

Even applying the current meaning of the word "militia", there is no requirement that
a citizen be a member of the militia to own firearms; just a requirement that the
government not prohibit that ownership.

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

You're overreacting - cutting off your nose to spite your face.

This community is a lot more diverse than you think it is. It's just
that some of us make it a point to keep religion and politics out of
it, because this isn't the right place. Everyone (myself included)
loses it sometimes, when something just can't be left unanswered, but
it's a bad idea. Best to leave it unanswered anyway, and killfile the
posters who keep doing it. The group becomes a lot easier to read,
and you don't miss much that's useful.

Speaking plainly, political and religious comments don't belong here,
and posting them here is uncivil at best. The nature of the political
and religious content on these newsgroups is probably less of a
reflection of the community as a whole and more a reflection of the
inability of those who express these ideas here to find the proper
place and keep it there. Any conclusions you might draw between the
tendency to post political and religious beliefs where they are
clearly inappropriate and the nature of those beliefs are up to you.

Michael

Frank Stutzman wrote:

In rec.aviation.ifr Jim Fisher wrote:

Ahh, but it is a truism if one accept the absolute fact that "marraige" has
been recognized for thousands of years as a religous tenant.

So True. But arn't we supposed to have a separation of church and state?

Not as far as the Constitution goes. The Constitution simply forbids Congress from
passing any laws related to religion. The actual wording is "Congress shall make no
law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise
thereof;".

If thats the case what's the state doing in the marriage business?

The state has been "in the marraige business" for well over 1,500 years. Marraige is
a legal contract and has been ever since inheritance rights began to be important and
codified.

Its a poor sampling, but right now the divorce rate between legally
married gay couples is a lot less than hetrosexual couples.

Give them time. As you point out, it's a poor sampling. I've known a number of gay
people, but few for very long. The one person that I've known for decades was married
and divorced. She is currently involved in her third lesbian relationship. If
marraige had been an option, she would have married and divorced her first lesbian
partner and be married to the third one now.

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

Personally, I would want a woman with a distinguished military combat
arms command or intel experience. A woman with either of those
backgrounds would eliminate most arguements.

Richard Russell wrote:
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

Peter Duniho wrote:

...polls provide the information regarding what people believe.

Uh huh. Which polls are these? Are they compiled by the same ones
compiling the exit polling data?

--
John T
http://tknowlogy.com/TknoFlyer
http://www.pocketgear.com/products_s...veloperid=4415
____________________

Peter Duniho wrote:

But the real issue here is that the people who voted for Bush, on the
whole, simply either refuse to believe the factual reports that
contradict everything Bush claimed and claims, or failed to pay
attention to those reports when they were made.

So, just to confirm, you're saying that anybody voting for Bush failed to
pay attention or chose to ignore "the facts". How do you reconcile that
argument with this statement from the same post?:

I can respect someone that fully understands what Bush did, and still
decides that in the greater scheme of things we're better off with
Bush. That's fine.

If "that's fine", then why can't you just admit that 51% of the voters fully
understood what Bush did and still decided we're better off with him than
Kerry?

Man, talk about sour grapes...

--
John T
http://tknowlogy.com/TknoFlyer
http://www.pocketgear.com/products_s...veloperid=4415
____________________