Dave Head wrote:
On Sat, 14 Oct 2006 09:07:54 GMT, bill wrote:

old stuff snipped
I agree with you on the gun thing since I have a purchased legally and
now illegal semi-automatic and if they think I am just going to walk in
and give them my gun they are nuts. Anybody who demands MY gun is likely
to be looking down the barrel.

Yeah, they want my deer rifle, they're going to get it 220 grains at a time,
very fast. They want my shotgun, they're going to get it 1 1/4 oz at a time,
also very fast.

I think that is what the Constitution meant, to defend yourself against
a bad government, but I don't think they could have foreseen a
government with such a modern technical advantage to be abused.
It just gets more interesting with time.

I'm with you and the NRA on the gun
thing, but just like the stupid abortion arguments, I can't base an
election on only one issue.

I can. I figure there's enough other people like you that balance things in
order to make up for my tunnel vision. My tunnel vision, combined with other's
like-targeted tunnel vision helps protect my gun right. Others, if they're of
a mind to, can tunnel-vision on some other issue. If they can muster 4 million
members in any one organization, like the NRA did, maybe they'll get what they
want, too.

I can't agree or disagree here, since the election of a politician on
one issue may get you one thing you want and ten things you don't. Right
now it seems to be that the parties are going to Hell, both of them, at
the top.

I'm pro-choice and pro-gun but anti Bush and
most of the current administration. If we had some 'better' Republicans
to choose from I would vote for them. I am voting for Arnold for a
second term as California's governor, both because I like him and
because his Democrat opponent looks kind of sleazy. On the rest it is a
split ticket, basically voting for the younger blood and the least
stupid as I have mentioned before. Voting a straight ticket to me is the
dumbest thing a voter can do, by not checking out each candidate. Like
the Democrats, for instance, sometimes you get a Kennedy, and sometimes
you get a Gore and a Kerry. Sometimes the Republicans get a Nixon.
It's all a game of chance, but I do think there should be an age limit
of about 75 for anybody. We have Senators and Congressmen who can barely
remember where they work, yet they keep getting elected.
And there should definitely be a minimum I.Q. standard for anyone who
wants to be president, about 120 to cull the chaff.
Bill Baka

I wouldn't be for an age limit, and an IQ limit I figure could be abused,
faked, or otherwise subverted. I once went to a Mensa meeting and won the
scrabble tournament, but it was time limited, and I don't think that it was
really a great way to determine much. I've never actually taken the Mensa
test, probably never will, but IQ ain't everything, I think.

Dave Head

Mensa is actually kind of an ego trip organization. I had some members
for friends and they were always trying to 'one up' each other, both at
work and at Wednesday night Pizza and beer. They both worked for me, so
try to imagine what happened to the unwary who walked into that snake
pit. Those guys are why I didn't join. I also don't want to spend an
entire day taking the full battery of tests.

Other topic, age!
We had a senator in Arizona who served until he was 99 or 100 and
decided to retire rather than run. He died soon after that. I think the
correct name was Strom Thurmond, and he set the all time age record for
an elected official. He probably would have gotten re-elected had he
run, even at that age since he was popular, kind of like a state
treasure that they did not want to vote out.

Age or I.Q.???

I like Robin Williams statement about politicians being like diapers.
Change them often and for the same reason.
Bill Baka