"socialist" when describing Hillary Clinton

Jay Honeck wrote:
That's where Larry and I part ways. I think this is basically a
hangar flying session, where conversations among pilots range widely
across the board.

Oh, so you only want to enforce the parts of the charter that are
convenient to you. Not surprised.

I never said anything about enforcing any "charter". I am, however,
opposed to personal attacks on other posters -- as your post so nicely
illustrates.

Your obsession with this topic seems odd. I suggest flying as an elixir
to cheer your tortured soul... It works for me!

Nothing tortured about my soul. Hell, I don't even believe in the notion
of soul. I just like shining the light on self-promoting hypocrites. A
class you so nicely represent.

Rich Ahrens wrote:
Jay Honeck wrote:
That's where Larry and I part ways. I think this is basically a
hangar flying session, where conversations among pilots range widely
across the board.

Oh, so you only want to enforce the parts of the charter that are
convenient to you. Not surprised.

I never said anything about enforcing any "charter". I am, however,
opposed to personal attacks on other posters -- as your post so nicely
illustrates.

Your obsession with this topic seems odd. I suggest flying as an
elixir to cheer your tortured soul... It works for me!

Nothing tortured about my soul. Hell, I don't even believe in the notion
of soul. I just like shining the light on self-promoting hypocrites. A
class you so nicely represent.


I saw tape of Hillary screeching this morning that they were
now going to "take this enthusiasm" to New Hampshire.
Enthusiasm? What enthusiasm? As Peggy Noonan says, Hillary
had the money, she had the organization, she had Bill ...
and she lost. She came in third. She didn't even carry the
female vote .. that went to Obama. Perhaps the more people
see of Hillary Clinton the more they're reminded of her
lies, her meanness and her seemingly unquenchable desire for
power. Look at Hillary and you see:

* Whitewater, Casa Grande and her role in those scams
* "Fire their asses!" The order given by Hillary to
sack the White House Travel Office
* Marines being used to hand out canapés at White House
functions
* Her obstruction of justice and perjury in the Rose
Law Firm billing records scandal.
* Craig Livingstone and the cache of FBI files
* The "I want to take those profits" moment.
* Leading the effort to destroy the women involved with
her husband.

Oh yeah .. there's more, and (again) as Peggy Noonan says in
this column: "There's something about her that makes you
look, watch, think, look again, weigh and say: No."

WolfRat wrote in :

Rich Ahrens wrote:
Jay Honeck wrote:
That's where Larry and I part ways. I think this is basically a
hangar flying session, where conversations among pilots range
widely across the board.

Oh, so you only want to enforce the parts of the charter that are
convenient to you. Not surprised.

I never said anything about enforcing any "charter". I am, however,
opposed to personal attacks on other posters -- as your post so
nicely illustrates.

Your obsession with this topic seems odd. I suggest flying as an
elixir to cheer your tortured soul... It works for me!

Nothing tortured about my soul. Hell, I don't even believe in the
notion of soul. I just like shining the light on self-promoting
hypocrites. A class you so nicely represent.


I saw tape of Hillary screeching this morning that they were
now going to "take this enthusiasm" to New Hampshire.
Enthusiasm? What enthusiasm?

Look, regardless of your political persuasion, there's little point in
hyperbole. There's definitely enthusiasm for her and she will probably
be elected because of it. I don't particularly care for her either, but
nattering on about crap like this isn't going to get you anywhwere.

OTOH, seeing as how just about every other candidate is equally or even
more unattractive, ther's little point in sespousing the alternative,
which is, of course, intelligent perceptive quetioning and debate, so ,
carry on, I guess.


Bertie

"Morgans" wrote in message ...

"John Mazor" wrote

The first few primaries are all about money - convincing contributors to put their
money on you and not the other candidates. Only later is it about winning enough
delegates for the nominating convention.

Yes, but if a candidate does not do well in the early showings, he/she will not get
enough money, and usually have to drop out, all together.

That is what I object to, in the big picture. They are not around to get my state's
vote (and my vote) to be a possible choice.

I resent that. BIG time. I'll bet in the last 30 years, half of the early primaries
have eliminated my top choice in the presidential primary. Some few states have been
allowed to make choices for the country, that should be made by the WHOLE country.

Simply, it sucks.

Amen. Paul Tsongas was a Democrat who was saying what needed to be said, that we needed
to conserve energy, we had to set funding priorities and stop promising everything to
everybody, and that Americans would have to start making sacrifices. I think he did well
in NH but as you would expect, voters didn't take well to someone who was brave enough to
speak the truth and he dropped out. I would have walked 10 miles in a blizzard to cast my
vote for him.

The root problem is that money plays too big a role in elections. I don't know how you
fix that without doing excessive violence to the First Amendment, but something is wrong
in a system where the first thing a winning candidate has to do is start calling on donors
for the next election cycle.

And speaking of some states determining the outcome, don't even get me started on block
voting in the electoral college system.

WolfRat wrote:
Oh yeah .. there's more, and (again) as Peggy Noonan says in this
column: "There's something about her that makes you look, watch, think,
look again, weigh and say: No."

Peggy Noonan??? Peggy Noonan??? The fact that you take seriously
anything that vapid fool says is enough to categorize you as not worth
listening to...

The root problem is that money plays too big a role in elections.

Boy, isn't that the truth? The money that was just spent in Iowa was
absolutely astounding -- and for what?

What's amazing to me is how the money and support in this election cycle is
not following the middle-of-the road candidates. For example, Joe Biden
was, in my mind, the most electable Democrat -- yet he's out today like bad
news.

And the Republicans select Huckabee? A nice guy that admits to not
believing in evolution? That's just downright scary. Yet, today he's the
front-runner... Sure makes ya scratch your head.

Meanwhile, the Democrats -- who, in the wake of GW, could probably nominate
Jack the Ripper and win the White House this year -- have two virtually
unelectable candidates as their front-runners. I simply can't believe the
choices before us are the best America can produce.

Sure is a screwy election cycle... The best we can only hope is that
whoever wins supports GA and doesn't hurt the country too badly.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

On 5 Jan, 03:44, "Jay Honeck" wrote:
The root problem is that money plays too big a role in elections.

Boy, isn't that the truth? *The money that was just spent in Iowa was
absolutely astounding -- and for what?

What's amazing to me is how the money and support in this election cycle is
not following the middle-of-the road candidates. *For example, Joe Biden
was, in my mind, the most electable Democrat -- yet he's out today like bad
news.

And the Republicans select Huckabee? *A nice guy that admits to not
believing in evolution? * That's just downright scary. *Yet, today he's the
front-runner... *Sure makes ya scratch your head.

Meanwhile, the Democrats -- who, in the wake of GW, could probably nominate
Jack the Ripper and win the White House this year -- have two virtually
unelectable candidates as their front-runners. * I simply can't believe the
choices before us are the best America can produce.

Sure is a screwy election cycle... * The best we can only hope is that
whoever wins supports GA and doesn't hurt the country too badly.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

More great aviation content there fjukwit

On Fri, 04 Jan 2008 00:20:32 GMT, "Jay Honeck"
wrote:

Two ideas:

I'll add a third.

Put "None of the above" on the ballot.

If NOTA wins, we start over, but all those on the ballot the first
time are disqualified.

Don


Virginia - the only State with a flag rated
"R" for partial nudity and graphic violence.

Jay Honeck wrote:
The root problem is that money plays too big a role in elections.

Boy, isn't that the truth? The money that was just spent in Iowa was
absolutely astounding -- and for what?

What's amazing to me is how the money and support in this election cycle
is not following the middle-of-the road candidates. For example, Joe
Biden was, in my mind, the most electable Democrat -- yet he's out today
like bad news.

And the Republicans select Huckabee? A nice guy that admits to not
believing in evolution? That's just downright scary. Yet, today he's

I find it comforting that he doesn't believe in evolution. And I hope
he also doesn't believe in global warming, er, uh, excuse me, global
climate change. It is hard to keep up with all these PC terms. I read
an article recently by a Russian scientist who talks about the coming
global cooling trend that will start in the not too distant future and
run for many decades.

Both of these theories are full of holes you could drive a truck through
so I'm glad Huckabee doesn't subscribe to them. However, there are
other reasons I can't support him unfortunately.

I can't say that there is a single candidate I can get behind at
present. Probably Mitt Romney is the closest given his fairly broad
experience both in business and in politics. I believe the CEO of our
country should have expert beyond law school.

Matt

Jay,

A nice guy that admits to not
believing in evolution?


Only in America...

I'm afraid there's something seriously wrong with your country if a guy
like that gets more than 20 seconds air time in something other than a
crackpot show, let alone be considered for President. The country's
success was and is largely built on science and technology, after all.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)