My John Kerry Site

[aviationwiz]

What do you guys think of my John Kerry site?
http://www.john-forbes-kerry.com
http://www.john-forbes-kerry.us

Same site. Please don't bring me stuff about how you don't like the candidate or something like that, just tell me what you think of the site, it's obviously just getting started...

[burninfool]

John Kerry is so liberal he makes Ted Kennedy look like a moderate.
Here is Kerry's campaign photo: www.space-debris.com/com_gwynne_munst.jpg

[JamieW]

Both candidates sicken me. I will either vote libertarian or Bush just because you are endorsing Kerry.

Site is a bit minimalist, btw.

[dodecahedron]

aviation, what's your affiliation with Kerry?

[Ian]

lol.. I don't think Wiz can even vote yet.

[pranav81]

lol.. I don't think Wiz can even vote yet.

Why do you say that Ian?Is Wiz only 5 years old?
I was doubting this for last many days...


::Pranav::

[JamieW]

If wiz can vote, that would just rattle my faith that with age comes wisdom.

[dodecahedron]

well, being 5 years old ( ) doesn't let you vote, but does let you be webadmin for a politician's website.

[JamieW]

That should be John Kerry's campaign focus:

"John Kerry, candidate for Americans ages 5-12. 8 million strong and growing."

[aviationwiz]

Wow, not a single person anwsered my question! Shouldn't have posted...

[jase]

John Kerry is so liberal he makes Ted Kennedy look like a moderate.

What's wrong with that?

Liberal: Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.

The USA was built on liberal values. Your economy is one of the most liberal on earth. I just don't understand why the word "liberal" is seen almost as a term of abuse in the States, when the cornerstones of freedom, democracy, equal rights and so on are liberal in outlook. You should be proud of a politician who wants to tear down the remaining barriers in society, surely?

I'm a liberal and proud of it. I firmly believe that as long as it does not harm another person, anything goes. There have to be limits, obviously, and that defines how liberal a person is (where those limits are placed), but as far as I am concerned, decriminalisation of drug-taking (though not pushing), gay marriages and so on I have absolutely no problem with whatsoever. If an adult consents to being chained, whipped and humiliated, in his own home why have a problem with it? If an idiot wants to tell a racist joke, I don't have to like it, but I certainly won't stop him doing it, that's freedom of speech. Surely that is how it should be?

Call me a leftie anarchist if you will but I just don't believe in telling people what they can or can't do, if it isn't causing harm (as opposed to offense) to anyone else.

Here is Kerry's campaign photo: www.space-debris.com/com_gwynne_munst.jpg

LMAO

[JamieW]

In the US, "liberal" does not mean what it traditionally means. Describing a politician as "liberal" here means far left, nearly socialists, and often authoritarian beliefs.

[jase]

I understand there is a difference, although I did often wonder what exactly "liberal" meant in the USA, thankyou for clearing that up. It's ironic that the word has come to mean that in the States; especially as the reference I gave to the meaning was poached out of an American on-line dictionary!!!!

The rest of it turned into a liberal rant, if there is such a thing...

It's strange because even in political terms, our "Liberal Democrat" party is left-leaning, but liberal in outlook (and I mean that in the traditional sense of the word to avoid any misunderstanding).

Meanwhile our right-wing party, the "Conservatives", stand for liberal economic values, although they are somewhat illiberal when it comes to social policy.

These words really have become corrupted, haven't they? (Thinks back to the German Democratic Republic......)

[Ian]

Liberal or conservative, Kerry just oozes "politician". But hey, he's better than Bush.

[VEFF]

I'll be the first to say it >>
Nice site aviationwiz!

Not related to Kerry specifically, but related to elections:
I still don't understand why there aren't more qualified people running for office in the US?
I mean if Arnold Schwarzenegger can so easily become governor of a state as big as California, with little or no prior political experience, it definitely makes me wonder!
He may even end up doing a great job, I just don't understand the lack of competition...
This country has close to 300 million people. There must be more people out there who can do a good job, that would be willing to run for office.

[cfitz]

Hey aviationwiz, even if you are too young to vote, that doesn't mean there is anything wrong with taking an interest in politics. After all, what happens in politics affects you too. And you will have to live in the future with the consequences of decisions made now. I commend you on your interests and your efforts and encourage you to stick with it.

As for specific recommendations, I would suggest adding some color and photographs. I know it is just eye-candy and not substance, but it does attract and influence people. I would also suggest working on the navigation. Many people dislike frames and most current web-design thinking frowns on their use. More importantly though, in your case the frame hides the web-ring banner and makes the page look awkward. But as I said, keep up the good work.

Personally, I plan on voting for Kerry unless there is some drastic change of events. I dislike being lied to about the reasons for taking America to war. I supported Bush when he told the American people that we needed to go to war in Iraq even though I had reservations. Since the world managed to live with Saddam in power for more than a decade after the first Gulf War (which is when I think the elder Bush should have finished the job right the first time), I questioned why there was a sudden need to invade Iraq last year. Still, I decided to support the president and trust that he had information available to him that I did not and that such information justified invasion. Obviously, I was wrong and now I feel that Bush deliberately misled the American public. To me, that is just inexcusable given the gravity of the situation.

By the way, my support of Kerry against Bush doesn't influence my support of your activities, aviationwiz. Even if I were a Bush supporter I would still encourage you to get involved for the candidate of your choice.

cfitz

[jase]

I can sympathise with your feelings 100% there cfitz. Tony Blair did a similar thing to the British people, and here it has done him and his party immeasurable damage (exactly as i predicted before the war started -- I'm still waiting for him to be ousted later this year as Labour leader). I was a Blair supporter; he's my local MP and I've voted for him directly on 4 occasions. But never again -- Iraq was a betrayal and I find his actions similarly inexcusable, and reprehensible.

I will have a look at the site properly later, as it's 1.30am here and time for bed. It'll be interesting to see an American's views on the potential future most powerful politician in the world.

[wicked1]

I dont like either. I think Bush is the antichrist. Kerry is so antigun it just pisses me off along with his crime ideas and drug budget ideas which scream repuplican even though hes a democrat. I will once again vote for Nader.

[cfitz]

Under other circumstances, I might go with you, wicked1. I can't say that I am thrilled with Kerry or that all his ideas match mine. But to me it is vital to get Bush out of office, so I will end up voting for Kerry. As happens too often in politics, we have choose between the lesser of two evils...

In the meantime, I am seriously considering buying a rifle and a pistol. I never thought I would buy a gun, but I am getting worried that if I don't get one soon, I won't ever be able to get one later should I decide I need one. Strange how the anti-gun fanatics are pushing at least one person who didn't have any gun ownership plans to go out and buy a couple.

cfitz

[dodecahedron]

In the meantime, I am seriously considering buying a rifle and a pistol. I never thought I would buy a gun, but I am getting worried that if I don't get one soon, I won't ever be able to get one later should I decide I need one. Strange how the anti-gun fanatics are pushing at least one person who didn't have any gun ownership plans to go out and buy a couple.

a friendly suggestion - buy a small safe along with it to keep it in.

[JamieW]

"buy a small safe along with it to keep it in."

Why? I'm not saying it is a good or a bad idea. I'm curious what your reasons are.

[cfitz]

Dodecahedron, I presume you are recommending a safe for safety purposes and not anti-theft purposes.

I have considered how to secure any gun I might buy. One of the reasons I've never bought a gun is that, although I enjoyed target shooting .22 rifles and pistols with my father as an adolescent, I don't have the time or facilities to do so now. And I figured if I wasn't actually using a gun (or felt some other need to own one such a self defense), then there was no need to add the slight additional safety risk of having a gun in the house. So I am cognizant of the need to responsibly use, care for and store a gun.

I don't want to invest in a gun safe large enough to hold a rifle, so I was thinking of using cable locks to secure the guns with the bolts held open. I was also considering purchasing a small safe that could hold the pistol and the rifle's bolt.

cfitz

[JamieW]

cfitz, if I may, I'd like to make some recommendations:

1. Get a revolver. Semi-autos should always have several hundred rounds run through them before you can call it reliable. There are issues with ammo compatibility with a semi-auto that you do not have with revolvers. Semi-autos are also dependent upon a magazine which may also fail. Further, the likelihood of a malfunction with a semi-auto is higher. Good semi-autos really don't fail, but the likelihood is still there. Once I got my 1911s bugs worked out, it has functioned flawlessly for the past 1500-2000 rounds. My glock has to be up towards 8000 rounds now without a single malfunction. But I still rely on a revolver at home. And if there is a malfunction with a semi-auto, the clearance drill should be practiced extensively. Drop the mag, rack the slide, insert new mag, drop the slide, bang. Revolvers in a malfunction (except for the most serious sorts of cylinder binding which I've seen like once on a POS) are easier to clear: pull the trigger again and go on to the next bullet. I recommend Ruger GP-100 or Security Six (used) or pre-agreement S&W model 19, 60, 65, 66, 686. 3-4" barrel is the way to go for home and target use. A 6" barrel will give the bullet more velocity and therefore overpenetration may be an issue if ammo selection isn't done correctly.

2. If you want to lock up a handgun, get a small touch operated lock, not key operated. If you decide you need it, you want to just put in some form of little code rather than seek out the key. Also, a good code is safer than a well-hidden key. These run anywhere form 60-150 dollars. I recommend GunVault.

[dodecahedron]

well, both reasons are important, although i must admit i was thinking of the first one.

there are many accidents every year when guns are fired accidentally at home, especially by children.

i had no idea you meant you were going to buy a rifle ! i thought you were talking about a pistol.

a small safe for the pistol and the rifle's bolt - that's a good idea.
that's what i used to do with my M16 when i was in the army (didn't have a safe, used a locked drawer instead).
another trick - take the firing pin out of the bolt and lock it separately elsewhere.

[NoSmartz]

it's a bit plain.Add a pic of him and take away the middle name(forbes),sounds dorky.

E