Its looking grim
 

Bill Kiene wrote:

If and when our Muslim friends are successful in getting a nuclear bomb off
in a major US city it will all take care of it's self.

I have lots of Muslim friends, none of whom would dream of getting any
sort of bomb off anywhere, so you must be talking about *your* Muslim
friends. How many of them have you got, anyway? Take your time.... at
the very least you've got a few million of your fellow U.S. citizens to
choose from.

JR

Its looking grim
 

Bill Kiene wrote:

If and when our Muslim friends are successful in getting a nuclear bomb off
in a major US city it will all take care of it's self.

I have lots of Muslim friends, none of whom would dream of getting any
sort of bomb off anywhere, so you must be talking about *your* Muslim
friends. How many of them have you got, anyway? Take your time.... at
the very least you've got a few million of your fellow U.S. citizens to
choose from.

JR

Its looking grim
 

"Chuck Wise" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 3 Nov 2004 11:45:04 -0600, "Wolfgang"
wrote:


"Chuck Wise" wrote in message
.. .
...those of us in the "heartland"...don't
all live in trailers and drink moonshine,

Yes, we do.


Poseur.

Frotteur.

One thing's for DAMN certain: ain't no self-respecting rube in the
heartland would go by the name "Wolfgang"!

Self-respect is grossly overrated.

Wolfgang

Its looking grim
 

"Bill Kiene" wrote in message
m...
If and when our Muslim friends are successful in getting a nuclear bomb
off
in a major US city it will all take care of it's self.

Automatic WWIII

--
Bill Kiene

If you have Muslim friends like that, you are in serious danger of being
arrested and held without trial under the "Patriot Act", so it might be
prudent to keep it to yourself.

MC

Its looking grim
 

"Bill Kiene" wrote in message
m...
If and when our Muslim friends are successful in getting a nuclear bomb
off
in a major US city it will all take care of it's self.

Automatic WWIII

--
Bill Kiene

If you have Muslim friends like that, you are in serious danger of being
arrested and held without trial under the "Patriot Act", so it might be
prudent to keep it to yourself.

MC

Its looking grim
 

"riverman" wrote in message
...

God will not help either Bush, or us. Many people here are shocked and
astounded that a whole nation can be taken in by such transparent
misinformation and fear-mongering, and allow themselves to be bullied into
giving the main perpetrator a mandate to continue. Absolutely incredible.

It appears to many, that your system fails, as it prevents better men from
ever reaching the stage where they might prevail over a war-mongering
incompetent incumbent.

MC

Its looking grim
 

"riverman" wrote in message
...

God will not help either Bush, or us. Many people here are shocked and
astounded that a whole nation can be taken in by such transparent
misinformation and fear-mongering, and allow themselves to be bullied into
giving the main perpetrator a mandate to continue. Absolutely incredible.

It appears to many, that your system fails, as it prevents better men from
ever reaching the stage where they might prevail over a war-mongering
incompetent incumbent.

MC

Its looking grim
 

philski writes:

at least time King George was
elected and not anointed.

Sour grapes still growing.....

Read this:
http://www.flcourts.org/pubinfo/election/

The Fed Supremes did not select Bush. They ruled that the Fla Supremes could
not change the rules in mid-stream, that the Fla Supremes could not make law.
Every single re-count ended up with Bush as the winner, and there were NO
disenfranchised voters. The recounts were stopped because of Florida LAW, not
because of anything the Fed Supremes ruled.

As far as this election...... Get rid of McAuliffe. Find a candidate with a
past record you can rely on, a record you can be proud of instead of constantly
defending. Find a candidate who will pick a running mate for what he can offer
instead of a candidate from a southern state figuring that HE can win the south
or portions of it. If Kerry had picked Gephartd, he probably would have won
Missouri and Arkansas. But he didn't stand a chance picking an unknown with NO
record except chasing ambulances. Edwards may be a fine man, but he sure as
hell isn't ready for prime time.

If the Dems are to win the Whitehouse, it will never be with a candidate like
Kerry, the most liberal man in the Senate (when he's there, that is). Dukakis
would have been a better choice.

Just my 2....

Its looking grim
 

philski writes:

at least time King George was
elected and not anointed.

Sour grapes still growing.....

Read this:
http://www.flcourts.org/pubinfo/election/

The Fed Supremes did not select Bush. They ruled that the Fla Supremes could
not change the rules in mid-stream, that the Fla Supremes could not make law.
Every single re-count ended up with Bush as the winner, and there were NO
disenfranchised voters. The recounts were stopped because of Florida LAW, not
because of anything the Fed Supremes ruled.

As far as this election...... Get rid of McAuliffe. Find a candidate with a
past record you can rely on, a record you can be proud of instead of constantly
defending. Find a candidate who will pick a running mate for what he can offer
instead of a candidate from a southern state figuring that HE can win the south
or portions of it. If Kerry had picked Gephartd, he probably would have won
Missouri and Arkansas. But he didn't stand a chance picking an unknown with NO
record except chasing ambulances. Edwards may be a fine man, but he sure as
hell isn't ready for prime time.

If the Dems are to win the Whitehouse, it will never be with a candidate like
Kerry, the most liberal man in the Senate (when he's there, that is). Dukakis
would have been a better choice.

Just my 2....

Its looking grim
 

On Wed, 3 Nov 2004 12:06:51 -0600, "Wolfgang"
wrote:


"Chuck Wise" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 3 Nov 2004 11:45:04 -0600, "Wolfgang"
wrote:


"Chuck Wise" wrote in message
.. .
...those of us in the "heartland"...don't
all live in trailers and drink moonshine,

Yes, we do.


Poseur.

Frotteur.


Wolfie, I think you're starting to rub off on me.

Its looking grim
 

"Chuck Wise" wrote in message
...


Wolfie, I think you're starting to rub off on me.

You want to be careful about that. No telling what it might lead to.

Wolfgang

Its looking grim
 

On 03 Nov 2004 19:06:39 GMT, irate (Dave LaCourse) wrote:

philski writes:

at least time King George was
elected and not anointed.

Sour grapes still growing.....

At least get your fable straight: sour grapes is saying that the thing you
can't or weren't able to get isn't worth having, it's not just being bitter
about not getting it. FWIW
--
Charlie...
http://bellsouthpwp.net/c/c/cchoc/

Its looking grim
 

On 03 Nov 2004 19:06:39 GMT, irate (Dave LaCourse) wrote:

philski writes:

at least time King George was
elected and not anointed.

Sour grapes still growing.....

At least get your fable straight: sour grapes is saying that the thing you
can't or weren't able to get isn't worth having, it's not just being bitter
about not getting it. FWIW
--
Charlie...
http://bellsouthpwp.net/c/c/cchoc/

Its looking grim
 

"Dave LaCourse" wrote in message
...
philski writes:

at least time King George was
elected and not anointed.

Sour grapes still growing.....

Read this:
http://www.flcourts.org/pubinfo/election/

The Fed Supremes did not select Bush. They ruled that the Fla Supremes
could
not change the rules in mid-stream, that the Fla Supremes could not make
law.
Every single re-count ended up with Bush as the winner, and there were NO
disenfranchised voters. The recounts were stopped because of Florida LAW,
not
because of anything the Fed Supremes ruled.


Ummm, did you actually read the Fed Supremes ruling? The gist of it was that
the Florida law on 'legal votes' was vague and inconsistent, and the laws
governing recounts were so poorly written that it would be impossible to
give the Florida voters a fair voice as the laws were written, but the laws
had to stand. In other words, the Law in Florida was basically illegal, that
there were PLENTY of disenfranchised voters, and that there was no way
around it according to the details of law. I quote from the Fed Supreme
ruling:
.................................................. ......
"Admittedly, the present situation is surreal: All the king's horses and all
the king's men could not get a few thousand ballots counted. The
explanation, however, is timeless. We are a nation of men and women and,
although we aspire to lofty principles, our methods at times are imperfect.

'First, although the untabulated Florida ballots may hold the truth to the
presidential election, we still--to this day--cannot agree on how to count
those ballots fairly and accurately. In fact, we cannot even agree on IF
they should be counted. Second, although the right to vote is paramount, we
rountinely installed outdated and defective voting systems and tabulating
equipment at our polls prior to the present election. And finally, although
the rule of law is supreme, the key legal text in this case--i.e., the
Florida Election Code--is fraught with contradicitons and ambiguities, and
the key legal ruling--i.e., the Unites States Supreme Court's final decision
in Bush vs. Gore-- was denigraded and rejected by nearly half the members of
that Court."
------------------------------------
Hardly an endorsement that there were 'no disenfranchised voters'.

Now, as to the statement that the recounts were stopped because of Florida
LAW:

In trying to guide the recount during the 'challenge' phase, the Fla
Supremes realized that the law was (as the Fed Supremes stated) vague and
ambiguous. So they providing definitions of what a 'legal' vote was and gave
the oversight to a single judge for continuity, and started the recounts.
The Feds stopped them immediately on Dec. 9 saying that their guidlines
needed to be more specific. Then on Dec. 12 at 10pm the Fed Supremes said
that a Florida-mandated deadline was passing, so the entire discussion was
moot. Then they decided that the Fed 10 deadline was probably not binding,
but that the Florida Supremes probably couldn't provide clear enough
guidelines. Then they said that, by trying to provide guidelines, they
overstepped their bounds, so the Fed Supremes said that the bad situation
had to stand. This is hardly a case of 'changing rules midstream' in the
spirit of deceipt or manipulation. This is hamstringing a court that was
trying to do the right thing in a bad situation.

To make it worse, Katherine Harris had looked at the law which stated that
the state had the responsibility to determine the voter's intent in any
legal vote, and determined that a 'legal vote' was one that did not have any
ambiguity: in other words, that the thousands of untabulated ballots did
not count because they did not count. Sort of like a 'lifetime guarantee'
that expires because the item broke.

Anyway, its not as simple as you stated, and by obstructing the Florida
ballot count through strange legal twists and turns, the Fed Supremes did,
indeed, hand the election to Bush.

--riverman

Its looking grim
 

"Dave LaCourse" wrote in message
...
philski writes:

at least time King George was
elected and not anointed.

Sour grapes still growing.....

Read this:
http://www.flcourts.org/pubinfo/election/

The Fed Supremes did not select Bush. They ruled that the Fla Supremes
could
not change the rules in mid-stream, that the Fla Supremes could not make
law.
Every single re-count ended up with Bush as the winner, and there were NO
disenfranchised voters. The recounts were stopped because of Florida LAW,
not
because of anything the Fed Supremes ruled.


Ummm, did you actually read the Fed Supremes ruling? The gist of it was that
the Florida law on 'legal votes' was vague and inconsistent, and the laws
governing recounts were so poorly written that it would be impossible to
give the Florida voters a fair voice as the laws were written, but the laws
had to stand. In other words, the Law in Florida was basically illegal, that
there were PLENTY of disenfranchised voters, and that there was no way
around it according to the details of law. I quote from the Fed Supreme
ruling:
.................................................. ......
"Admittedly, the present situation is surreal: All the king's horses and all
the king's men could not get a few thousand ballots counted. The
explanation, however, is timeless. We are a nation of men and women and,
although we aspire to lofty principles, our methods at times are imperfect.

'First, although the untabulated Florida ballots may hold the truth to the
presidential election, we still--to this day--cannot agree on how to count
those ballots fairly and accurately. In fact, we cannot even agree on IF
they should be counted. Second, although the right to vote is paramount, we
rountinely installed outdated and defective voting systems and tabulating
equipment at our polls prior to the present election. And finally, although
the rule of law is supreme, the key legal text in this case--i.e., the
Florida Election Code--is fraught with contradicitons and ambiguities, and
the key legal ruling--i.e., the Unites States Supreme Court's final decision
in Bush vs. Gore-- was denigraded and rejected by nearly half the members of
that Court."
------------------------------------
Hardly an endorsement that there were 'no disenfranchised voters'.

Now, as to the statement that the recounts were stopped because of Florida
LAW:

In trying to guide the recount during the 'challenge' phase, the Fla
Supremes realized that the law was (as the Fed Supremes stated) vague and
ambiguous. So they providing definitions of what a 'legal' vote was and gave
the oversight to a single judge for continuity, and started the recounts.
The Feds stopped them immediately on Dec. 9 saying that their guidlines
needed to be more specific. Then on Dec. 12 at 10pm the Fed Supremes said
that a Florida-mandated deadline was passing, so the entire discussion was
moot. Then they decided that the Fed 10 deadline was probably not binding,
but that the Florida Supremes probably couldn't provide clear enough
guidelines. Then they said that, by trying to provide guidelines, they
overstepped their bounds, so the Fed Supremes said that the bad situation
had to stand. This is hardly a case of 'changing rules midstream' in the
spirit of deceipt or manipulation. This is hamstringing a court that was
trying to do the right thing in a bad situation.

To make it worse, Katherine Harris had looked at the law which stated that
the state had the responsibility to determine the voter's intent in any
legal vote, and determined that a 'legal vote' was one that did not have any
ambiguity: in other words, that the thousands of untabulated ballots did
not count because they did not count. Sort of like a 'lifetime guarantee'
that expires because the item broke.

Anyway, its not as simple as you stated, and by obstructing the Florida
ballot count through strange legal twists and turns, the Fed Supremes did,
indeed, hand the election to Bush.

--riverman

Its looking grim
 

Wolfgang wrote:

"philski" wrote in message
...


...my wife takes 15 necessary meds - costing us in excess of
300.00 w/ copay.


Hell, that ain't so bad. I know people who pay more than that EVERY
YEAR!


I want the
government out of my life.


So, you've notified your local fire department that they are never,
under ANY circumstances, to enter onto your property?


Just My .02 cents worth.


Where shall we send the change?

Wolfgang


I was thinking primarily along the lines of the Patriot Act - along with
Ashcroft (a worthless appointee).

I work at the Boise Airport for the government (Homeland Security) as an
engineer - I don't want to bite the hand that feeds me....

Philski

Its looking grim
 

Wolfgang wrote:

"philski" wrote in message
...


...my wife takes 15 necessary meds - costing us in excess of
300.00 w/ copay.


Hell, that ain't so bad. I know people who pay more than that EVERY
YEAR!


I want the
government out of my life.


So, you've notified your local fire department that they are never,
under ANY circumstances, to enter onto your property?


Just My .02 cents worth.


Where shall we send the change?

Wolfgang


I was thinking primarily along the lines of the Patriot Act - along with
Ashcroft (a worthless appointee).

I work at the Boise Airport for the government (Homeland Security) as an
engineer - I don't want to bite the hand that feeds me....

Philski

Its looking grim
 

From: "Tim J."

In your present condescention mode, you *would* suspect that. Here's
what you *should* be considering, IMHO: The Dems offered no viable
alternative to Bush (which was all this election was about).

By all
rights, someone with some uniting capabilities or a little charisma
should have been able to defeat Bush, and clearly would have done so.
Kerry offered neither quality.

100% on the money. Bush was very vulnerable in this election, and the
democratic party is so effed up, they not only couldn't take advantage of the
situation, they handed Bush the largest popular vote in history, the first
clear majority since 1988, and the electoral vote wasn't that close. Also,
there were significant Republican gains in congress. A message has been sent,
but I bet nobody is listening.

Here's a hint: If the dems want to beat Rudy in 2008, don't have trash like
Franken, Moore, and P. Diddey campaigning for you.


George Adams

"All good fishermen stay young until they die, for fishing is the only dream of
youth that doth not grow stale with age."
---- J.W Muller

Its looking grim
 

From: "Tim J."

In your present condescention mode, you *would* suspect that. Here's
what you *should* be considering, IMHO: The Dems offered no viable
alternative to Bush (which was all this election was about).

By all
rights, someone with some uniting capabilities or a little charisma
should have been able to defeat Bush, and clearly would have done so.
Kerry offered neither quality.

100% on the money. Bush was very vulnerable in this election, and the
democratic party is so effed up, they not only couldn't take advantage of the
situation, they handed Bush the largest popular vote in history, the first
clear majority since 1988, and the electoral vote wasn't that close. Also,
there were significant Republican gains in congress. A message has been sent,
but I bet nobody is listening.

Here's a hint: If the dems want to beat Rudy in 2008, don't have trash like
Franken, Moore, and P. Diddey campaigning for you.


George Adams

"All good fishermen stay young until they die, for fishing is the only dream of
youth that doth not grow stale with age."
---- J.W Muller

Its looking grim
 

Myron writes:

Anyway, its not as simple as you stated, and by obstructing the Florida
ballot count through strange legal twists and turns, the Fed Supremes did,
indeed, hand the election to Bush.


I see...... So, how many recounts, in your estimation, should it take? Bush
won every single one, including the sneaky one where we counted only the ballot
from a predominately Democrat county. It was and continues to be a total
farce. There is no way better than a machine to tally the vote on a ballot
designed to be read by a machine. The networks eventually got all the ballots
and counted them and guess what? Bush still won. There were only those
disenfranchised voters who were too stupid to pick the correct candidate.

Do you believe there were disenfranchised voters in Florida for this election?
I don't believe so. In the 2000 election, the liberal networks called the
state *before* the panhandle had a chance to vote. Lots of folks (most of them
military or military retired) never got to vote. They *did* vote this time.

Myron, it is over and like Kerry himself has said, let us unite behind the
president and get the miserable job done.

Its looking grim
 

Myron writes:

Anyway, its not as simple as you stated, and by obstructing the Florida
ballot count through strange legal twists and turns, the Fed Supremes did,
indeed, hand the election to Bush.


I see...... So, how many recounts, in your estimation, should it take? Bush
won every single one, including the sneaky one where we counted only the ballot
from a predominately Democrat county. It was and continues to be a total
farce. There is no way better than a machine to tally the vote on a ballot
designed to be read by a machine. The networks eventually got all the ballots
and counted them and guess what? Bush still won. There were only those
disenfranchised voters who were too stupid to pick the correct candidate.

Do you believe there were disenfranchised voters in Florida for this election?
I don't believe so. In the 2000 election, the liberal networks called the
state *before* the panhandle had a chance to vote. Lots of folks (most of them
military or military retired) never got to vote. They *did* vote this time.

Myron, it is over and like Kerry himself has said, let us unite behind the
president and get the miserable job done.

Its looking grim
 

From: "riverman"

No, I think if you were some hick farmer from the South or Midwest, you'd
have no idea of what just happened, but you'd be overjoyed that you were now
personally safe from having a DC10 crash into your local WalMart, and proud
as hail that your nephew was

protecting America by making Haliburton rich.
You'd not understand the fundamental crime against Capitalism it is to allow
Ken Lay and others to cut and run. And you'd find some way to blame the
screaming national debt and deteriorating foreign relations on
\Clinton. And
you'd probably say things like "Heck, the ice caps aren't gonna melt in the
next 4 years" and "Who needs wilderness areas anyway...no one ever goes
there!" And you'd think the French are a bunch of silly, inferior furrin
dimwits with foreign accents, and that the AyeRabs are all terrorists.

And
you'd have no idea how much the "educated elite" you just re-empowered were
leading you around by the nose

This is exactly the kind of elitist crap that cost Kerry & Co. the election.


George Adams

"All good fishermen stay young until they die, for fishing is the only dream of
youth that doth not grow stale with age."
---- J.W Muller

Its looking grim
 

"philski" wrote in message
...
Wolfgang wrote:

"philski" wrote in message
...


...my wife takes 15 necessary meds - costing us in excess of
300.00 w/ copay.


Hell, that ain't so bad. I know people who pay more than that
EVERY
YEAR!


I want the
government out of my life.


So, you've notified your local fire department that they are
never,
under ANY circumstances, to enter onto your property?


Just My .02 cents worth.


Where shall we send the change?

Wolfgang


I was thinking primarily along the lines of the Patriot Act - along
with
Ashcroft (a worthless appointee).

I work at the Boise Airport for the government (Homeland Security)
as an
engineer - I don't want to bite the hand that feeds me....

Sounds like you do. But you're afraid. Nevertheless, you did. And
I'll bet a shiny new nickel that the Boise Fire Department is a
governmental agency. And hey, how about that Socialist Security, huh?

Wolfgang
still holding that change.

Its looking grim
 

"philski" wrote in message
...
Wolfgang wrote:

"philski" wrote in message
...


...my wife takes 15 necessary meds - costing us in excess of
300.00 w/ copay.


Hell, that ain't so bad. I know people who pay more than that
EVERY
YEAR!


I want the
government out of my life.


So, you've notified your local fire department that they are
never,
under ANY circumstances, to enter onto your property?


Just My .02 cents worth.


Where shall we send the change?

Wolfgang


I was thinking primarily along the lines of the Patriot Act - along
with
Ashcroft (a worthless appointee).

I work at the Boise Airport for the government (Homeland Security)
as an
engineer - I don't want to bite the hand that feeds me....

Sounds like you do. But you're afraid. Nevertheless, you did. And
I'll bet a shiny new nickel that the Boise Fire Department is a
governmental agency. And hey, how about that Socialist Security, huh?

Wolfgang
still holding that change.

Its looking grim
 

philski writes:

I have always been an independent. I knew my vote in Idaho would be
nothing more than a protest vote because I do not like Bush. I
particularly do not like Cheney. He lacks integrity. (not that Kerry has
an abundance of it either- )

I believe that is the problem with the Dem Party this time around: They
selected someone who they thought could beat Bush, not someone who they thought
would be a good president. Lots of people voted for Kerry because of their
dislike of Bush. That ain't no way to run a railroad. Pick a viable
candidate, someone without all the luggage that Kerry carried (questionable VN
service, questionable actions after VN which probably lengthened the war, a
Senator without a good record in Congress, a billionaire wife who looks like
Tootsie and can't keep her trashy mouth shut, and the blunder of all blunders,
picking Edwards as his running mate). It was a train wreck waiting to happen.

You do not vote because you hate someone; you vote because you think your
candidate is the best qualified.

Its looking grim
 

"George Adams" wrote in message
...
From: "Tim J."

In your present condescention mode, you *would* suspect that.
Here's
what you *should* be considering, IMHO: The Dems offered no viable
alternative to Bush (which was all this election was about).

By all
rights, someone with some uniting capabilities or a little charisma
should have been able to defeat Bush, and clearly would have done
so.
Kerry offered neither quality.

100% on the money. Bush was very vulnerable in this election, and
the
democratic party is so effed up, they not only couldn't take
advantage of the
situation, they handed Bush the largest popular vote in history, the
first
clear majority since 1988, and the electoral vote wasn't that close.
Also,
there were significant Republican gains in congress. A message has
been sent,
but I bet nobody is listening.

Here's a hint: If the dems want to beat Rudy in 2008, don't have
trash like
Franken, Moore, and P. Diddey campaigning for you.

I don't suppose it's occurred to you....or that you've been
informed....that the U.S. now has the largest population in it's
history. Messages are being sent all the time. You've just sent
another very clear one. People ARE listening. Many understand your
message all to well. It will be interesting to see whether anyone
attempts to explain it to you.

Wolfgang
good luck, ya'll.

Its looking grim
 

"George Adams" wrote in message
...
From: "Tim J."

In your present condescention mode, you *would* suspect that.
Here's
what you *should* be considering, IMHO: The Dems offered no viable
alternative to Bush (which was all this election was about).

By all
rights, someone with some uniting capabilities or a little charisma
should have been able to defeat Bush, and clearly would have done
so.
Kerry offered neither quality.

100% on the money. Bush was very vulnerable in this election, and
the
democratic party is so effed up, they not only couldn't take
advantage of the
situation, they handed Bush the largest popular vote in history, the
first
clear majority since 1988, and the electoral vote wasn't that close.
Also,
there were significant Republican gains in congress. A message has
been sent,
but I bet nobody is listening.

Here's a hint: If the dems want to beat Rudy in 2008, don't have
trash like
Franken, Moore, and P. Diddey campaigning for you.

I don't suppose it's occurred to you....or that you've been
informed....that the U.S. now has the largest population in it's
history. Messages are being sent all the time. You've just sent
another very clear one. People ARE listening. Many understand your
message all to well. It will be interesting to see whether anyone
attempts to explain it to you.

Wolfgang
good luck, ya'll.

Its looking grim
 

On Wed, 03 Nov 2004 13:57:09 -0700, philski
wrote:

I agree with your view Ken. I think if the Dems ever want to get ahead
in the race for the White House, they need to dump the Gay Agenda. They
have more than they can deal with with "right to life". I don't think
there are enough gay votes (just my opinion) to sway a national vote one
way or the other. The dems need to " Steer Clear of the Queers" (an old
Idaho axiom)


Dammit, I swore I wasn't gonna do this. But my dander's up again.

Eleven states just voted to deny entry into the institution of
marriage to US Citizens based solely on their sexual orientation, and
YOU think GAYS have an "agenda"?

What would that be, exactly? Are they guilty of trying to "secure the
blessings of liberty to themselves..."? Damn that constitution.

As a devout and practicing heterosexual, I can't begin to understand
why it's any of my business whatsoever - or the business of the
government - what two or more consenting adults do in the privacy of
their own homes and relationships.

Heterosexuals have managed to make a complete mockery and debacle of
the institution of marriage: I've never seen it demonstrated that
homosexuals could possibly do worse.

But if two men or women love each other and want to get married and
share in the legal benefits, pitfalls, and sacrifice of "marital
bliss", and can find a willing church or justice of the peace, I say
"God Bless 'Em" and "God Help 'Em".

Chuck

Its looking grim
 

George Adams writes:

Bush was very vulnerable in this election, and the
democratic party is so effed up, they not only couldn't take advantage of the
situation, they handed Bush the largest popular vote in history, the first
clear majority since 1988, and the electoral vote wasn't that close. Also,
there were significant Republican gains in congress. A message has been sent,
but I bet nobody is listening.

Here's a hint: If the dems want to beat Rudy in 2008, don't have trash like
Franken, Moore, and P. Diddey campaigning for you.


Well said, George. I would add, get rid of McAuliffe.

Here is a post from another ng.

"Senator Kerry has given a graceful and positive concession speech,
for which I know the country is grateful.
The gimmick of "provisional voting" just didn't have
the steam to throw us into another legal fight, and
we can all hope it will be thrown onto the ash heap of
failed tricks along with "hanging chads."
I will presume to present a few points
to my fellow citizens who happen to be Democrats.

The country continues to turn more and more Republican.
This is not because you didn't get your message out,
or turn-out was too low, or someone rigged the machines,
or the Court "selected," or
Martian aliens on nuclear jet skis hypnotized the voters or
any other such nonsense.
It is because the views of the Democratic Party
are reflected by an ever-shrinking minority.
Please consider these points:
Most people do not support abortion.
In fact, most people are repulsed by partial-birth abortion.
Most do not hate and distrust the military.
Most think that people kill people, not guns.
Most people think criminals should be punished, and swiftly.
They believe they don't owe a damn dime to a person
just because their great-great-great granddaddy was a slave.
Most people are sick of being force-feed stupidity
in the guise of "political correctness."
Movie stars and rock stars are not respected political voices.
The major media can no longer buy elections for you
(Let's be adults, OK? The early exit polls showing
a Kerry landslide were intentional attempts to
sway the election, just like the early calls in 2000).
Tricks and gimmicks used to stuff ballot boxes no longer work;
honest and straight-forward elections with good candidates are better.
Most people still believe in God, honor the flag
and say grace over their meals.

I could go on, but you get the idea.
Unless and until the Democratic Party stops blaming everyone else
for its troubles, until it looks at itself in
the mirror and says: "My problems are *my fault,* and *I*
need to work to fix them," it will continue to wither
until it becomes an irrelevancy.

Democrats, look back at the party of Hubert Humphrey, Edwin Muskie,
Harry Truman. They were decent men who had a different vision
than we on the Right, but it was sincere and honest and we could
work with them.
Demagogues and opportunist have taken your party and are killing it.
Get back to the days when your party put forth men of principle,
and you'll see the voters come back to you.

D.S."

Its looking grim
 

Bill Kiene wrote:

If and when our Muslim friends are successful in getting a nuclear bomb off
in a major US city it will all take care of it's self.

Automatic WWIII

--
Bill Kiene


I hope such a thing never happens , but should it ............
I don`t think it will be WW111 ...... The US has just alienated
itself from the rest of the world . they`ll have to fight this one
their own J

Its looking grim
 

Bill Kiene wrote:

If and when our Muslim friends are successful in getting a nuclear bomb off
in a major US city it will all take care of it's self.

Automatic WWIII

--
Bill Kiene


I hope such a thing never happens , but should it ............
I don`t think it will be WW111 ...... The US has just alienated
itself from the rest of the world . they`ll have to fight this one
their own J

Its looking grim
 

Myron writes:

And Liberal is not a swear word.


Oh, I agree. You can not, however, use it to describe today's Democrat
without taking a lot of crap over it. Hence Kerry's "I don't like labels."
Today's liberal in the Dem Party is not the liberal that I witnessed in JFK or
Truman or Muskie, but rather more of a socialist. My family voted for Truman,
and I voted for JFK. Most liberals have taken God out of the equation ( I know,
I know, there is no god) and many people are now sensing that. The
Trumans/JFKs/Muskys all had God in their equations.

Oh, well. It was a good (or terrible) race and I am very glad it is over. I
went to bed last night at 10 not really shiving a git who won, knowing that
whoever it is, we will survive.

Dave

Its looking grim
 

Myron writes:

And Liberal is not a swear word.


Oh, I agree. You can not, however, use it to describe today's Democrat
without taking a lot of crap over it. Hence Kerry's "I don't like labels."
Today's liberal in the Dem Party is not the liberal that I witnessed in JFK or
Truman or Muskie, but rather more of a socialist. My family voted for Truman,
and I voted for JFK. Most liberals have taken God out of the equation ( I know,
I know, there is no god) and many people are now sensing that. The
Trumans/JFKs/Muskys all had God in their equations.

Oh, well. It was a good (or terrible) race and I am very glad it is over. I
went to bed last night at 10 not really shiving a git who won, knowing that
whoever it is, we will survive.

Dave

Its looking grim
 

Wolfgang wrote:
"philski" wrote in message
...

Wolfgang wrote:


"philski" wrote in message
...



...my wife takes 15 necessary meds - costing us in excess of
300.00 w/ copay.


Hell, that ain't so bad. I know people who pay more than that

EVERY

YEAR!



I want the
government out of my life.


So, you've notified your local fire department that they are

never,

under ANY circumstances, to enter onto your property?



Just My .02 cents worth.


Where shall we send the change?

Wolfgang



I was thinking primarily along the lines of the Patriot Act - along

with

Ashcroft (a worthless appointee).

I work at the Boise Airport for the government (Homeland Security)

as an

engineer - I don't want to bite the hand that feeds me....


Sounds like you do. But you're afraid. Nevertheless, you did. And
I'll bet a shiny new nickel that the Boise Fire Department is a
governmental agency. And hey, how about that Socialist Security, huh?

Wolfgang
still holding that change.


Well, I am not afraid as you put it. I like my freedoms. And infringing
on my freedoms is not something I specifically cherish. Considering my
statement that I want the government removed from my life - you and I
both know that that is an impossibility in today's society. I made the
statement not to be taken literally as you did. I worked for the gov for
years. I do know the difference. Its just that I want them at arm's
length. I do pay taxes for certain services and those, although are
government entities, do not, in my opinion, have to have their every
finger on my pulse so-to-speak. You surely get my drift. I think the
Patriot Act is too far reaching. There are already laws on the books for
most of the criminal and/or terrorist activities in the U.S. I don't
share the abundance of paranoia that I see in the GOP.

As far as Social Security is concerned, I think I could have done a lot
better had I been able to invest those same monies in simple savings
accounts. But I have to pay into it whether I like it or not. Each
paycheck I receive has a noted deduction for the upkeep of that
entitlement. It used to have it's own fund and account. But it was
raided by Congress and put into the General Fund. So, I will collect "my
share" someday, but until then, I guess I'll have to put up with the tax
that it is.

BTW - do you think GW will be giving us another tax refund - I could use
another 600.00 dollar check just before Christmas!

Philski

Its looking grim
 

Wolfgang wrote:
"philski" wrote in message
...

Wolfgang wrote:


"philski" wrote in message
...



...my wife takes 15 necessary meds - costing us in excess of
300.00 w/ copay.


Hell, that ain't so bad. I know people who pay more than that

EVERY

YEAR!



I want the
government out of my life.


So, you've notified your local fire department that they are

never,

under ANY circumstances, to enter onto your property?



Just My .02 cents worth.


Where shall we send the change?

Wolfgang



I was thinking primarily along the lines of the Patriot Act - along

with

Ashcroft (a worthless appointee).

I work at the Boise Airport for the government (Homeland Security)

as an

engineer - I don't want to bite the hand that feeds me....


Sounds like you do. But you're afraid. Nevertheless, you did. And
I'll bet a shiny new nickel that the Boise Fire Department is a
governmental agency. And hey, how about that Socialist Security, huh?

Wolfgang
still holding that change.


Well, I am not afraid as you put it. I like my freedoms. And infringing
on my freedoms is not something I specifically cherish. Considering my
statement that I want the government removed from my life - you and I
both know that that is an impossibility in today's society. I made the
statement not to be taken literally as you did. I worked for the gov for
years. I do know the difference. Its just that I want them at arm's
length. I do pay taxes for certain services and those, although are
government entities, do not, in my opinion, have to have their every
finger on my pulse so-to-speak. You surely get my drift. I think the
Patriot Act is too far reaching. There are already laws on the books for
most of the criminal and/or terrorist activities in the U.S. I don't
share the abundance of paranoia that I see in the GOP.

As far as Social Security is concerned, I think I could have done a lot
better had I been able to invest those same monies in simple savings
accounts. But I have to pay into it whether I like it or not. Each
paycheck I receive has a noted deduction for the upkeep of that
entitlement. It used to have it's own fund and account. But it was
raided by Congress and put into the General Fund. So, I will collect "my
share" someday, but until then, I guess I'll have to put up with the tax
that it is.

BTW - do you think GW will be giving us another tax refund - I could use
another 600.00 dollar check just before Christmas!

Philski

Its looking grim
 

Chuck Wise wrote:

On Wed, 03 Nov 2004 13:57:09 -0700, philski
wrote:


I agree with your view Ken. I think if the Dems ever want to get ahead
in the race for the White House, they need to dump the Gay Agenda. They
have more than they can deal with with "right to life". I don't think
there are enough gay votes (just my opinion) to sway a national vote one
way or the other. The dems need to " Steer Clear of the Queers" (an old
Idaho axiom)



Dammit, I swore I wasn't gonna do this. But my dander's up again.

Eleven states just voted to deny entry into the institution of
marriage to US Citizens based solely on their sexual orientation, and
YOU think GAYS have an "agenda"?

What would that be, exactly? Are they guilty of trying to "secure the
blessings of liberty to themselves..."? Damn that constitution.

As a devout and practicing heterosexual, I can't begin to understand
why it's any of my business whatsoever - or the business of the
government - what two or more consenting adults do in the privacy of
their own homes and relationships.

Heterosexuals have managed to make a complete mockery and debacle of
the institution of marriage: I've never seen it demonstrated that
homosexuals could possibly do worse.

But if two men or women love each other and want to get married and
share in the legal benefits, pitfalls, and sacrifice of "marital
bliss", and can find a willing church or justice of the peace, I say
"God Bless 'Em" and "God Help 'Em".

Chuck
Chuck,
I don't disagree with what you say. I just think that it costs the
Democrats votes each and every time there is a national election. I too
don't care if they are married, church leaders or anything else for that
matter. I grew up with a brother that was gay. I think he was destined
to be gay in his life. It wasn't a choice in his part. Dave died of AIDS
in San Francisco in 1983. I have first-hand knowledge of the gay
community. I visited my brother and his lover in the city many times. We
grew up together and I do know the trials and troubles he went through.
He was quite intelligent - he was a Nation Merit Scholarship winner as
well as member of the US Navy. He was a radioman on swift boats in Viet
Nam. But as I said, if the Dems want to get more of the votes that went
for "morality and values" they will, in my opinion, soften the rhetoric
on gay marriage. Yes, john kerry said he did not support gay marriage -
but it did chase some moderates to the GOP side of the aisle during
yesterday's vote.

Gays do have every right you and I enjoy. The problems associated with
being gay are real. I would not deny any person their just rights....

Philski

Its looking grim
 

"Dave LaCourse" wrote in message
...
Myron writes:

And Liberal is not a swear word.


Oh, I agree. You can not, however, use it to describe today's Democrat
without taking a lot of crap over it. Hence Kerry's "I don't like
labels."
Today's liberal in the Dem Party is not the liberal that I witnessed in
JFK or
Truman or Muskie, but rather more of a socialist. My family voted for
Truman,
and I voted for JFK. Most liberals have taken God out of the equation ( I
know,
I know, there is no god) and many people are now sensing that. The
Trumans/JFKs/Muskys all had God in their equations.

Oh, well. It was a good (or terrible) race and I am very glad it is over.
I
went to bed last night at 10 not really shiving a git who won, knowing
that
whoever it is, we will survive.



Yeah, that's hopefully true. Did I ever mention that I was friends with
Muskie's daughter Martha at UMaine?

--riverman

Its looking grim
 

philski wrote:

Gays do have every right you and I enjoy. The problems associated with
being gay are real. I would not deny any person their just rights....

I'm warning you, philski, we we permit gay marriage they will book up
all the banquet halls. It will be chaos.

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

Its looking grim
 

"Wayne Knight" wrote in message
Nice of George to open the door to the first female US president in
2008. Another president Clinton on the way.

What is it with you Democrats. You have a death wish or something.
Give yourselves a break and run someone who can match up their shoes
with their feet.

Its looking grim
 

"Wayne Knight" wrote in message
Nice of George to open the door to the first female US president in
2008. Another president Clinton on the way.

What is it with you Democrats. You have a death wish or something.
Give yourselves a break and run someone who can match up their shoes
with their feet.