Leaving the community

If you look up the definition of "fascist" you will see that is closely
describes the philosophy of the Democratic party.

From Webster's:

Fascist:
1 often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that
of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and
that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial
leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression
of opposition

Hmmmm. Other than the "dictatorial leader" and "forcible suppression" parts
(which are very important points, indeed) I see your point. :-)

However, that's kind of like saying that we are apes, except for the
intelligence and fur. The details are important, and hyperbole like this
isn't going to heal our country.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

I haven't done an analysis for this year yet (obviously, since the year
isn't over and the data isn't there yet) but I do have the numbers for the
2000 contest. Since we had essentially the same red/blue map, this is
still telling. The bottom line?

Total tax receipts from states that voted for each candidate, in
$millions:
Go $1,202,891,545
Bush: $873,151,976

The real analysis would be to determine what percentage of each state's tax
receipts were generated by people who work for the government, or who are on
the government dole.

Since people being paid by the government (employees, retirees, what have
you) do not generate any income in the purest sense, the "taxes" they "pay"
are entirely illusory. Same with anyone on the dole.

Re-do your figures, Aviv, taking this into account, and I think you'll see a
DRAMATIC reversal of your numbers.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Actually you are describing the beliefs of a Libertarian not a Liberal.
True Liberals only want someone to be free to do something as long as
it is on their "list" of approved things.

Nomen Nescio wrote:
And I tend to be a true liberal......If you ain't hurting anyone and want to do it, go for it.
Wanna own a full auto assault weapon, fine. Just don't murder anyone. (I do and I haven't)
Wanna fly, don't fly into a building with 500 lbs of TNT. (I do and I don't)

Kerry and his wife paid a net 12% tax on their billions in income.

I can only assume that Gore voters are more willing to have the wool
pulled over their eyes.

Aviv Hod wrote:

Total tax receipts from states that voted for each candidate, in $millions:
Go $1,202,891,545
Bush: $873,151,976

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?

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