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

Dave Head wrote:
On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 21:20:44 GMT, bill wrote:

Jean H. wrote:
Most of the GMOs that I have read about are modified to withstand a
particular plant disease or to survive long periods without water, or
something like that. There is a need or some foods might not be
available at all.
hum, indeed a lot of them are made resistent to pesticides (not to the
insects!)... the first one in my mind is the Round Up Ready corn by
Monsanto..

Bush is the biggest enemy of research right now, since that fool
thinks stem cell research is immoral. Good thing that after November
he will be a real "Lame duck". Worst president in my lifetime, except
maybe Truman.
Bill Baka
agreed! ... isnt' he the biggest enemy of almost everything?
He seems to be even this countries worst enemy. I don't know how he
could have gotten re-elected, much less by such a big margin, after 4
years of screwing up, unless the Republicans are either
A. Totally stupid.
B. The party is so corrupt that they fixed the election.

I am just not believing that Kerry lost so badly since everyone I know
voted for him. How did the coward win over the guy who actually served?

Bill Baka

Its easy to understand... at the time, the Dems were still into collecting up
all the guns, and in spite of how that is not a popular issue with you and your
friends, in a whole lot of the rest of the country, people cherish their 2nd
amemdment rights, and in fact all their rights. While California, New York,
and a lof of the coastal states would like to forget the 2nd amendment, the
rest of the country, those vast seas of red states, believe that without our
guns, the liberals would do just as they please, and negate even more of the
bill of right.

Now, I understand that the Dems have given up on the idea of collecting up all
the guns. Maybe they'll actually get somewhere in the polls this time. But, in
any close election, the NRA will kill you if you are not pro-gun (notice that
doesn't mean simply not anti-gun, but actually _for_ 2nd amendment rights). It
doesn't matter to the NRA whether you're Dem or Rep, you get an endorsement
from them if you support gun right. Then I vote for that person. And several
million other NRA members do the same. And that's how they win the election.

Dave Head

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'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'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