Pilot's Political Orientation

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> Gene Seibel wrote:

> >
> > Possibly, if I thought it was better. At 53 years old I've pretty well
> > got my mind set on what I think is better. Others may not agree.
> > Doesn't mean they are wrong. With TV, books and internet, there aren't
> > a whole lot of ideas out there that have been kept secret. Most of
> > what I hear is new packaging for old ideas.
>
> This has been true for at least 2000 years, at least with respect to
> things involving people. Technology has advanced dramatically, but
> people are pretty much the same as they were in Biblical times.
>
Human nature hasn't really changed in a lot longer than 2000 years.

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Gig Giacona" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Dan Truesdell" > wrote in message
> ...
> > the past. And it gave rise to things like Love Canal, horrible child
> > labor situations, Company Stores, and Slavery. Please recognize that
> > this government intervention that you speak of is exactly the
> > intervention that brought these and many other horrific "features" of
> > the "Free Market Economy" to an end.
> >
> > <snip>
> >
>
>
> That same free market is what caused the MRI you are so proud to be
> invented. The government didn't tell anyone "You MUST build the MRI."
>
Correct, but they DID throw quite a few directives towards the people at
Love Canal.

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Peter Gottlieb" > wrote in message
. net...
>
> "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
> nk.net...
>
> > That's the problem with abortion, it
> > controls the body of another.
>
> The problem with prohibiting abortion is that it controls the body of
> another.
>
> When rights conflict, how do you strike a balance? By religious
background
> and beliefs? Whose? By "morals?" Whose?
>
> If this were an easy question it would have been resolved long ago.
>
It's not that it (or any other such) question is all that difficult, but
that emotions run rampant, and cloud out thought.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
>
> Neither was taxation... sigh.
>

The Constitution does not provide for taxation?

[Dan Truesdell]

Gig Giacona wrote:
<snip>


>>
>>That's not the point. This was, and is, NOT about me! That is a
>>selfish attitude, and one I choose not to take. When will there be a
>>general realization that, for all of it's faults, the government
>>intervention that you so quickly dismiss provides many necessary items
>>that WE ALL use every day. There may be no supporting argument to say
>>that WE are better off, but the opposite is not the case. There are
>>many supporting arguments indicating that WE would be worse off if there
>>were no government (read general public) intervention. The people that
>>are fond of spouting that we "should let the Free Market Economy work
>>(our fearless leader included) seem to forget that we have done this in
>>the past. And it gave rise to things like Love Canal, horrible child
>>labor situations, Company Stores, and Slavery. Please recognize that
>>this government intervention that you speak of is exactly the
>>intervention that brought these and many other horrific "features" of
>>the "Free Market Economy" to an end.
>>
>><snip>
>>
>
>
> That same free market is what caused the MRI you are so proud to be
> invented. The government didn't tell anyone "You MUST build the MRI."
>
>

You are correct. So the questions should be: Would we even have an MRI
at this time without public schools? Just where would the developers of
modern technology come from?



--
Remove "2PLANES" to reply.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Dan Truesdell" > wrote in message
...
>
> You are correct. So the questions should be: Would we even have
> an MRI at this time without public schools? Just where would the
> developers of modern technology come from?
>

Private schools.

[Joe Young]

"Peter Gottlieb" > wrote in message
. net...
>
> "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
> k.net...
> > >
> > > When rights conflict, how do you strike a balance? By
> > > religious background and beliefs? Whose? By "morals?" Whose?
> > >
> > > If this were an easy question it would have been resolved long ago.
> > >
> >
> > One wonders why it's a question at all.
> >
>
> Perhaps because we're a democracy rather than a dictatorship?
>
>

If that were true abortion would be outlawed. Every poll shows the vast
majority of the American public apposes abortion. If that is the case in a
democracy, shouldn't the majority rule?

[Matt Whiting]

Peter Gottlieb wrote:
> "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
> nk.net...
>
>
>>That's the problem with abortion, it
>>controls the body of another.
>
>
> The problem with prohibiting abortion is that it controls the body of
> another.
>
> When rights conflict, how do you strike a balance? By religious background
> and beliefs? Whose? By "morals?" Whose?
>
> If this were an easy question it would have been resolved long ago.
>
>

I think it is a pretty long held principle that you can't exercise your
rights in violation of another's. At least this was the priniciple
prior to the legalization of abortion. This is the exact same reason
you can't exercise your 1st amendment right to yell "FIRE" in a crowded
theater.


Matt

[Matt Whiting]

Joe Young wrote:
> "Peter Gottlieb" > wrote in message
> . net...
>
>>"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
k.net...
>>
>>>>When rights conflict, how do you strike a balance? By
>>>>religious background and beliefs? Whose? By "morals?" Whose?
>>>>
>>>>If this were an easy question it would have been resolved long ago.
>>>>
>>>
>>>One wonders why it's a question at all.
>>>
>>
>>Perhaps because we're a democracy rather than a dictatorship?
>>
>>
>
>
> If that were true abortion would be outlawed. Every poll shows the vast
> majority of the American public apposes abortion. If that is the case in a
> democracy, shouldn't the majority rule?

The woman involved in getting abortion legalized has also opposed it for
many years and tried to get the ruling overturned. You don't hear much
about that either in the popular press.


Matt

[Matt Whiting]

Tom Sixkiller wrote:
> "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Gene Seibel wrote:
>
>
>>>Possibly, if I thought it was better. At 53 years old I've pretty well
>>>got my mind set on what I think is better. Others may not agree.
>>>Doesn't mean they are wrong. With TV, books and internet, there aren't
>>>a whole lot of ideas out there that have been kept secret. Most of
>>>what I hear is new packaging for old ideas.
>>
>>This has been true for at least 2000 years, at least with respect to
>>things involving people. Technology has advanced dramatically, but
>>people are pretty much the same as they were in Biblical times.
>>
>
> Human nature hasn't really changed in a lot longer than 2000 years.

I agree. That is why I said AT LEAST 2000 years.

Matt

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Dan Truesdell" > wrote in message
...

> >
> >
> > That same free market is what caused the MRI you are so proud to be
> > invented. The government didn't tell anyone "You MUST build the MRI."
> >
> >
>
> You are correct. So the questions should be: Would we even have an MRI
> at this time without public schools? Just where would the developers of
> modern technology come from?
>

Man, you just love the "Fallacy of the False Alternative", don't you?

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Joe Young" > wrote in message
...

> > >
> >
> > Perhaps because we're a democracy rather than a dictatorship?
> >
> >
>
> If that were true abortion would be outlawed. Every poll shows the vast
> majority of the American public apposes abortion. If that is the case in
a
> democracy, shouldn't the majority rule?
>

Really? Every poll I've seen supports abortion.

[Matt Whiting]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Neither was taxation... sigh.
>>
>
>
> The Constitution does not provide for taxation?
>
>

No originally.

[James Robinson]

Joe Young wrote:
>
> Every poll shows the vast majority of the American public apposes
> abortion. If that is the case in a democracy, shouldn't
> the majority rule?

I'm not sure what polls you are reading, but here is a link that shows
the opposite, i.e. support for legal abortions at about 53 percent, and
opposition at 43 percent. They state this has been the trend for at
least the last decade.

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/poll010702.html

[Joe Young]

"James Robinson" > wrote in message
...
> Joe Young wrote:
> >
> > Every poll shows the vast majority of the American public apposes
> > abortion. If that is the case in a democracy, shouldn't
> > the majority rule?
>
> I'm not sure what polls you are reading, but here is a link that shows
> the opposite, i.e. support for legal abortions at about 53 percent, and
> opposition at 43 percent. They state this has been the trend for at
> least the last decade.
>
> http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/poll010702.html

This one seems to have some different stats?????........??

http://christianparty.net/abortiongallup.htm

here is a interesting survey

http://www307.pair.com/ejs/plal1/surveys.htm

here is another...all found with a quick google search on abortion poll...

http://www.euthanasia.com/poll.html

[James Robinson]

Joe Young wrote:
>
> James Robinson wrote:
> >
> > Joe Young wrote:
> > >
> > > Every poll shows the vast majority of the American public apposes
> > > abortion. If that is the case in a democracy, shouldn't
> > > the majority rule?
> >
> > I'm not sure what polls you are reading, but here is a link that shows
> > the opposite, i.e. support for legal abortions at about 53 percent, and
> > opposition at 43 percent. They state this has been the trend for at
> > least the last decade.
> >
> > http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/poll010702.html
>
> This one seems to have some different stats?????........??
>
> http://christianparty.net/abortiongallup.htm

I prefer ABC news as a less biased source than an advocacy group, thank
you.

[Joe Young]

"James Robinson" > wrote in message
...
> Joe Young wrote:
> >
> > James Robinson wrote:
> > >
> > > Joe Young wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Every poll shows the vast majority of the American public apposes
> > > > abortion. If that is the case in a democracy, shouldn't
> > > > the majority rule?
> > >
> > > I'm not sure what polls you are reading, but here is a link that shows
> > > the opposite, i.e. support for legal abortions at about 53 percent,
and
> > > opposition at 43 percent. They state this has been the trend for at
> > > least the last decade.
> > >
> > > http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/poll010702.html
> >
> > This one seems to have some different stats?????........??
> >
> > http://christianparty.net/abortiongallup.htm
>
> I prefer ABC news as a less biased source than an advocacy group, thank
> you.

ABC News is less biased.............. :) OK you win!

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"James Robinson" > wrote in message
...
>
> I prefer ABC news as a less biased source than an advocacy
> group, thank you.
>

Less biased, perhaps, but definitely not unbiased.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
>
> No originally.
>

Not originally? Of course it did. See article 1, section 8, clause 1.

[running with scissors]

"Michael 182" > wrote in message news:<uQWgc.161786$gA5.1908220@attbi_s03>...
> Dan,
>
> Look up Tarver on Google. He is a long time troll who never bothers to back
> up any of his arguments except with rambling non-sensical "statements of
> fact". Give it up.
>
> Michael
>


nah he's not a troll, he believes his utter garbage.

[running with scissors]

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message >...
> "Michael 182" > wrote in message
> news:uQWgc.161786$gA5.1908220@attbi_s03...>
> > "Dan Luke" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > "Tarver Engineering" wrote:
> > > > > Another lie.
> > > >
> > > > I have science on my side
> > >
> > > Another lie.
> > >
> > > > and no reason to lie.
> > >
> > > Then apparently it's just your nature.
> > >
> > > > > Try posting there again. If what you just said is the truth,
> > > > > you should get little or no response.
> > > >
> > > > I cross post to talk.origins every few months. It
> > > > is a kook bin full of retards spewing 150 year old
> > > > dog breeder science and an ocasional qualified
> > > > biologist. The biologist usually admits that there are
> > > > big problems with Darwin's "Origin of Species",
> > > > but "it demonstrates how one thing might
> > > > replace another". Although demonstrating a
> > > > concept has value, theaching religion as science is
> > > > not the way to do it.
> > >
> > > More lies. You're afraid.
> > Dan,
> >
> > Look up Tarver on Google.
>
> You will find an archive troll which has been largely ineffective. There
> was a second archive troll, but the paradox in that one has been revealed.
>

ineffective in what? archiving your crap. on one needs to show you
for the prick you are. you do a stand up job of that yourself.

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Joe Young" > wrote in message
...
>
> "James Robinson" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Joe Young wrote:
> > >
> > > Every poll shows the vast majority of the American public apposes
> > > abortion. If that is the case in a democracy, shouldn't
> > > the majority rule?
> >
> > I'm not sure what polls you are reading, but here is a link that shows
> > the opposite, i.e. support for legal abortions at about 53 percent, and
> > opposition at 43 percent. They state this has been the trend for at
> > least the last decade.
> >
> > http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/poll010702.html
>
> This one seems to have some different stats?????........??
>
> http://christianparty.net/abortiongallup.htm
>
> here is a interesting survey
>
> http://www307.pair.com/ejs/plal1/surveys.htm
>
> here is another...all found with a quick google search on abortion poll...
>
> http://www.euthanasia.com/poll.html
>

How about a poll (Zogby, etc) that hasn't got pre-loaded results.

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> Tom Sixkiller wrote:
> > "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> >>Gene Seibel wrote:
> >
> >
> >>>Possibly, if I thought it was better. At 53 years old I've pretty well
> >>>got my mind set on what I think is better. Others may not agree.
> >>>Doesn't mean they are wrong. With TV, books and internet, there aren't
> >>>a whole lot of ideas out there that have been kept secret. Most of
> >>>what I hear is new packaging for old ideas.
> >>
> >>This has been true for at least 2000 years, at least with respect to
> >>things involving people. Technology has advanced dramatically, but
> >>people are pretty much the same as they were in Biblical times.
> >>
> >
> > Human nature hasn't really changed in a lot longer than 2000 years.
>
> I agree. That is why I said AT LEAST 2000 years.
>

How about this: "At least 50,000 years"?

[smackey]

I come to this bulletin board to get info on flying, not politics.
While I know that I could skip this particular thread, I also want to
know what is going on. These pages tend toward off-topic issues
quicly and regularly. I know that by the time that message # 20
(usually much earlier) is posted, the whole subject is completely
"OT".

Don't you people know that nothing you say is going to change any
minds? Everyone has his/her agenda to promote, and nothing said is is
going to change anyone's mind. This from a lawyer who deals with this
type of stuff every day. Please tell me why this is not a) an utter
waste of time of and b) by people who apparantly have way too much
time on their hands.

[Dave Stadt]

"Joe Young" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Peter Gottlieb" > wrote in message
> . net...
> >
> > "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
> > k.net...
> > > >
> > > > When rights conflict, how do you strike a balance? By
> > > > religious background and beliefs? Whose? By "morals?" Whose?
> > > >
> > > > If this were an easy question it would have been resolved long ago.
> > > >
> > >
> > > One wonders why it's a question at all.
> > >
> >
> > Perhaps because we're a democracy rather than a dictatorship?
> >
> >
>
> If that were true abortion would be outlawed. Every poll shows the vast
> majority of the American public apposes abortion. If that is the case in
a
> democracy, shouldn't the majority rule?

Thank goodness we do not have a democracy.

[Dave Stadt]

"James Robinson" > wrote in message
...
> Joe Young wrote:
> >
> > James Robinson wrote:
> > >
> > > Joe Young wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Every poll shows the vast majority of the American public apposes
> > > > abortion. If that is the case in a democracy, shouldn't
> > > > the majority rule?
> > >
> > > I'm not sure what polls you are reading, but here is a link that shows
> > > the opposite, i.e. support for legal abortions at about 53 percent,
and
> > > opposition at 43 percent. They state this has been the trend for at
> > > least the last decade.
> > >
> > > http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/poll010702.html
> >
> > This one seems to have some different stats?????........??
> >
> > http://christianparty.net/abortiongallup.htm
>
> I prefer ABC news as a less biased source than an advocacy group, thank
> you.

ABC less biased.....best joke in this thread so far.

[John Harlow]

> Don't you people know that nothing you say is going to change any
> minds?

Don't you know nothing you can say is going to change anyone's posting
habits? ;)

[Tom Sixkiller]

> Don't you people know that nothing you say is going to change any
> minds?

I doubt that.

[Dude]

Okay, so no one mentioned ANYTHING except abortion. So does that mean that
only the pro choicers are voting liberal, and they are single issue voters?

That is of course a non logical claim, but worth mentioning. Anyway...

Your stance on abortion will invariably come down to valuing the life of the
child over the woman's ability to remove the worlds most incredible
trespassers - the unborn.

Don't believe me?

Pro lifers are often more anti sex than they are anti abortion. That is why
they rely on the fact the woman's participation in copulation was voluntary
to deny her control over her body to remove the fetus. However, her will is
completely nullified in cases of rape, yet they still deny her an abortion.

If you deny exceptions for rape, then you are saying that volition is not a
factor.

If you allow exceptions for rape, you are justifying homicide of an innocent
third party. What kind of crap is that? Seriously, there is no logic in
this at all unless you live in some warped world where women who willingly
have sex are to be punished by pregnancy. Sounds sadistic to me.

On The Other Hand...

There is no denying that a fetus is a living human. The only arguments
against this can all be described as "semantic claptrap."

So, where does this bring us?

To the point where people who cannot reach this logical conundrum without
hours of banter continuously drone on, and on, and on because they KNOW they
are right.

You cannot take one side or the other without denying the other sides point
which pretty much puts you in an extremist camp of one side or the other
unless you chicken out and claim "faith". "Faith" based laws are almost
universally believed to be unconstitutional, even by most christians.

As for the post I am responding to- this completely fallacious line of
reasoning that because I am a man, I can have no fear of the impending
change in the laws against abortion. Therefore, I am supposedly wrong in my
opinion.

I respond - Bull!

I believe that the conservatives cannot enact a prohibition of abortion
without losing power in the next election. They know this, and therefore,
will not try it. Its just not worth giving up the entire rest of the issues
to protect that one isssue. Even if the pro-lifers were to succeed, it
would quickly be switched back at the next election if not sooner.

Lastly, the fact that I am a man does not exempt me from having a valid
viewpoint on matters of abortion. My view is that the status quo is
acceptable anyway, so stick your reactionary left wing claptrap...

My idea is that if you are going to be born into slavery, you are better off
not being born. If you have no right to prevent others from invading your
body, you are a slave. Male pregnancy is an eventual medical possibility.
Therefore, male or female, if your parent(s) have no right to abortion, you
will neither. You are being born into slavery. Being unborn, the parent
bearing you is the obvious choice as guardian and should be able to make
this decision on your behalf, as well as their own.










"Pete" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Dude" > wrote:
>
> > a really important plot point:
> >
> > The liberals have been much more successful in redistributing the
wealth,
> > than the conservatives have been in controlling my body.
> >
> > As soon as this changes, I will vote the other way.
>
> Given that you're a man, this is pretty much a non-sequitur. You can't
> ever have an abortion. (Nor can you be forced NOT to have one)
> --
> Robots that make smelly farts?
> That doesn't make any sense!

[Dude]

Dan,

You are in the fortunate position of pointing out the obvious. Yes many of
the engineers are a result of public assistance. What we cannot know is
would there be less or more of them without that assistance. We also cannot
know how many of them had there creativity stifled in the process of
becoming engineers. Not all inventors had formal engineering training after
all.

You have not even approached my argument.

Of course, I am in the fortunate position of having an unassailable, ivory
tower sort of argument. You cannot disprove it without changing the world.
Good Luck!

Perhaps if you could find a controlled study?


"Dan Truesdell" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Dude wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> >
> > Perhaps, but what about the argument that escalating college costs are a
> > direct result of too much government subsidy. Why did he need college,
> > because he didn't get an adequate high school education? Was this due
to
> > the effect of the liberalization of public schools?
>
> My high school was adequate, but one does not become a Mechanical
> Engineer without going to college. Many of the engineers I graduated
> with had some kind of public assistance. Think about this the next time
> your doctor orders a MRI to diagnose your ailment. It would be pretty
> tough to do if some of us that actually design and build the things you
> use everyday weren't motivated by something other than money.
>
> >
> > All this post points out is that the government has gotten way too
involved
> > in our lives without any supporting evidence that we would not be better
off
> > without that involvement. We don't know that the author would not have
been
> > better off without college.
>
> That's not the point. This was, and is, NOT about me! That is a
> selfish attitude, and one I choose not to take. When will there be a
> general realization that, for all of it's faults, the government
> intervention that you so quickly dismiss provides many necessary items
> that WE ALL use every day. There may be no supporting argument to say
> that WE are better off, but the opposite is not the case. There are
> many supporting arguments indicating that WE would be worse off if there
> were no government (read general public) intervention. The people that
> are fond of spouting that we "should let the Free Market Economy work
> (our fearless leader included) seem to forget that we have done this in
> the past. And it gave rise to things like Love Canal, horrible child
> labor situations, Company Stores, and Slavery. Please recognize that
> this government intervention that you speak of is exactly the
> intervention that brought these and many other horrific "features" of
> the "Free Market Economy" to an end.
>
> <snip>
>
> --
> Remove "2PLANES" to reply.
>

[Dan Truesdell]

Dude,

I'd be interested in taking this discussion off-line. (Great topic, but
hardly appropriate for these ng's. My apologies to the groups.) Please
respond to the address below if you like.

Thanks.

Dan

Dude wrote:
> Dan,
>
> You are in the fortunate position of pointing out the obvious. Yes many of
> the engineers are a result of public assistance. What we cannot know is
> would there be less or more of them without that assistance. We also cannot
> know how many of them had there creativity stifled in the process of
> becoming engineers. Not all inventors had formal engineering training after
> all.
>
> You have not even approached my argument.
>
> Of course, I am in the fortunate position of having an unassailable, ivory
> tower sort of argument. You cannot disprove it without changing the world.
> Good Luck!
>
> Perhaps if you could find a controlled study?
>

<snip>



--
Remove "2PLANES" to reply.

[Andrew Gideon]

Dave Stadt wrote:

> Thank goodness we do not have a democracy.

It amazes me how few people really understand this, and the logic behind it.
The nonsense over Iraq is a good example. Everyone speaks of "Democracy in
Iraq" as if this were an absolute good.

Fortunately, the current administration in Iraq isn't quite as foolish as
they appear. They are working to put protection of minorities into the new
social fabric. I've doubts, though, that they can succeed w/o spending a
generation or two in place, and even that may not be enough.

After all, as I wrote above, few people even in the States understand this.
Of the few that do, many of these are against it. The idea of "judges
don't make law", aside from displaying a lack of understanding of common
law, presumes that the democratically elected officials (representing "the
majority") are pretty much free to pass any law.

We here should be especially sensitive to this. The majority would be happy
to do away with GA. In the scheme of things (ie. as compared to other
mandates that would pass a majority poll), this is but a small thing. But
I'd hope it would be enough to sensitize GA participants to the dangers
when the majority is permitted to impose their own moral code - or even
noise preferences - upon the minority in an unlimited way.

- Andrew

[Andrew Gideon]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

>
> "Andrew Gideon" > wrote in message
> online.com...
>>
>> I'd love for this to be so, but the evidence claims otherwise. Why is a
>> conservative administration against the right of people to marry?
>>
>
> It isn't.

You cannot see it because you only know what you know, and you refuse to
acknowledge that anything you don't understand can be right. By
definition, unfortunately, you're stuck in your own small-minded little
world.

I know this because in another post you wrote:

Of course, if they made real sense, they'd make sense to me.

Not only is that arrogant, but it's incredibly childish. Tough as it may be
for you to believe, you are not the center of any universe but your own.

>
>
>>
>> I can see their rational in the case of abortion, even if I don't
>> agree. But not even a single cell is harmed if a same-sex
>> couple marries. Why would anyone care?
>>
>
> Because if the meaning of marriage is altered, assuming for the sake of
> argument government has that authority, then every marriage is altered.

I could see your reasoning were marriage being redfined in such a way that
some set of people marriaged pre-redefinition would be not married
post-redefinition.

That's not the case.

Did the right to vote change when it was granted to those not white
landowners?

>
>
>>
>> Why, under a supposedly conservative administration, have we
>> American citizens held in violation of the law merely by defining them
>> as soldiers in a foreign army? Yes, deal with them. But deal with
>> them in a fashion consistent with our values...or give up the claim to
>> being "for freedom".
>>
>
> What the hell are you talking about?

Either you don't follow the news (ie. cases before the US Supreme Court) or
you're playing one of your pedantic games. I don't care which, frankly.

- Andrew

[Andrew Gideon]

Tom Sixkiller wrote:

>> Since conservative philosophy precludes judicial activism there can be no
>> "conservative activist judges".
>>
> Ah....yeah, okie dokie.

No, he's not being his usual self here. He's right.

The problem is with the label. Those calling themselves conservative today
often fail any reasonable test. The current US administration is a perfect
example, with a history of actions that (for example) violate free market
(steel tariffs) and states' rights (education) principles.

I'm not sure what they should be called, but "conservative" is not
applicable.

Unfortunately.

- Andrew

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Andrew Gideon" > wrote in message
gonline.com...
>
> You cannot see it because you only know what you know, and
> you refuse to acknowledge that anything you don't understand
> can be right.
>

There is nothing about this issue that I do not understand.

[leslie]

Andrew Gideon ) wrote:
: Tom Sixkiller wrote:
:
: >> Since conservative philosophy precludes judicial activism there can
: >> be no "conservative activist judges".
: >>
: > Ah....yeah, okie dokie.
:
: No, he's not being his usual self here. He's right.
:
: The problem is with the label. Those calling themselves conservative
: today often fail any reasonable test. The current US administration is
: a perfect example, with a history of actions that (for example) violate
: free market (steel tariffs) and states' rights (education) principles.
:
: I'm not sure what they should be called, but "conservative" is not
: applicable.
:
: Unfortunately.
:

The conservative* who supported gays in the military ("You don't have to
be straight to shoot straight") would probably be classified a liberal today.

A better term for neoconservatives is neo-Jacobins:

http://www.vdare.com/roberts/ryn.htm
VDARE.com: 10/21/03 - New Book Blasts America's Neo-Jacobins

"New Book Blasts America's Neo-Jacobins
By Paul Craig Roberts

Do you want to know why President George W. Bush's focus on the war
against terror was redirected to war against Iraq and the Muslim
Middle East? Read Professor Claes G. Ryn's new book, America the
Virtuous: Crisis of Democracy and the Quest for Empire.

Professor Ryn is a learned, insightful, and courageous scholar who
ably explains the ideas that are destroying our country.

These ideas are the property of neo-Jacobins. Professor Ryn calls the
ideas "a recipe for conflict and perpetual war." Neo-Jacobins are
known to Americans as neoconservatives, a clever euphemism behind
which hides a gang of radicals who stand outside of, and opposed to,
the American tradition. The US has been subverted from within as these
counterfeit conservatives hold the reins of power in the Bush
administration.

Professor Ryn shows that Jacobins have not a drop of conservative
blood in their veins. For example, the Jacobins' concept of morality
is abstract and ahistorical. It is a morality that is divorced from
the character of individuals and the traditions of a people.

Jacobins are seduced by power. The foundation of their abstract
morality is their fantastic claim to a monopoly on virtue. Secure in
their belief in their monopoly on virtue, Jacobins are prepared to use
force to impose virtue on other societies and to reconstruct other
societies in the Jacobin image.

Jacobin society is a centralized one that subordinates individuals and
their liberties to abstract virtues. In short, it is an ideological
society imbued with assurance of moral superiority that justifies its
dominance over others, including its own citizens.

Virtue gives Jacobins a mandate to rule the world in order to improve
it. Opposed to the American Republic that is based in traditional
morality and limits on power, the Jacobin agenda is to remake America
into an empire capable of imposing virtue on the world..."


The Bush administration's foreign policy is run by a group of men from
the Project for a New American Century:

http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm
Statement of Principles

"June 3, 1997

American foreign and defense policy is adrift. Conservatives have
criticized the incoherent policies of the Clinton Administration. They
have also resisted isolationist impulses from within their own ranks.
But conservatives have not confidently advanced a strategic vision of
America's role in the world. They have not set forth guiding
principles for American foreign policy. They have allowed differences
over tactics to obscure potential agreement on strategic objectives.
And they have not fought for a defense budget that would maintain
American security and advance American interests in the new century.

We aim to change this. We aim to make the case and rally support for
American global leadership

[snip]

Such a Reaganite policy of military strength and moral clarity may not
be fashionable today. But it is necessary if the United States is to
build on the successes of this past century and to ensure our security
and our greatness in the next.

Elliott Abrams Gary Bauer William J. Bennett Jeb Bush
Dick Cheney Eliot A. Cohen Midge Decter Paula Dobriansky
Steve Forbes
Aaron Friedberg Francis Fukuyama Frank Gaffney Fred C. Ikle
Donald Kagan Zalmay Khalilzad I. Lewis Libby Norman Podhoretz
Dan Quayle Peter W. Rodman Stephen P. Rosen Henry S. Rowen
Donald Rumsfeld Vin Weber George Weigel Paul Wolfowitz"


--Jerry Leslie
Note: is invalid for email

* Barry Goldwater

[Andrew Gideon]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

>
> "Andrew Gideon" > wrote in message
> gonline.com...
>>
>> You cannot see it because you only know what you know, and
>> you refuse to acknowledge that anything you don't understand
>> can be right.
>>
>
> There is nothing about this issue that I do not understand.

I'm fascinated by this idea. How do you prove to yourself that all you
understand is all there is to understand?

- Andrew

[Matt Whiting]

James Robinson wrote:
> Joe Young wrote:
>
>>James Robinson wrote:
>>
>>>Joe Young wrote:
>>>
>>>>Every poll shows the vast majority of the American public apposes
>>>>abortion. If that is the case in a democracy, shouldn't
>>>>the majority rule?
>>>
>>>I'm not sure what polls you are reading, but here is a link that shows
>>>the opposite, i.e. support for legal abortions at about 53 percent, and
>>>opposition at 43 percent. They state this has been the trend for at
>>>least the last decade.
>>>
>>>http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/poll010702.html
>>
>>This one seems to have some different stats?????........??
>>
>>http://christianparty.net/abortiongallup.htm
>
>
> I prefer ABC news as a less biased source than an advocacy group, thank
> you.

Was is ABC or CBS that staged the Chevy pickup truck exploding gas tank?
I don't trust any of the news organizations anymore. Almost every one
has been caught doing something like this when they can't get the real
data to match the outcome they desire to report.


Matt

[Matt Whiting]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>No originally.
>>
>
>
> Not originally? Of course it did. See article 1, section 8, clause 1.
>
>

Right you are. I thought this came into being with the 16th amendment.
That seems superfluous, given your reference above. Since article 1,
section 8, clause 1 seems pretty general with regard to taxation, I'm
now curious why the XVI amendment was necessary.

Matt

[James Robinson]

Matt Whiting wrote:
>
> James Robinson wrote:
> > Joe Young wrote:
> >
> >>James Robinson wrote:
> >>
> >>>Joe Young wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>Every poll shows the vast majority of the American public apposes
> >>>>abortion. If that is the case in a democracy, shouldn't
> >>>>the majority rule?
> >>>
> >>>I'm not sure what polls you are reading, but here is a link that shows
> >>>the opposite, i.e. support for legal abortions at about 53 percent, and
> >>>opposition at 43 percent. They state this has been the trend for at
> >>>least the last decade.
> >>>
> >>>http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/poll010702.html
> >>
> >>This one seems to have some different stats?????........??
> >>
> >>http://christianparty.net/abortiongallup.htm
> >
> >
> > I prefer ABC news as a less biased source than an advocacy group, thank
> > you.
>
> Was is ABC or CBS that staged the Chevy pickup truck exploding gas tank?

Neither. That was NBC.

> I don't trust any of the news organizations anymore. Almost every one
> has been caught doing something like this when they can't get the real
> data to match the outcome they desire to report.

You just have to be skeptical. At least there is an editorial board,
and they have to answer to the FCC. If you want manipulated data, just
look at any number of sites on internet, which don't have to answer to
anybody.

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> >
> >
> > I prefer ABC news as a less biased source than an advocacy group, thank
> > you.
>
> Was is ABC or CBS that staged the Chevy pickup truck exploding gas tank?
> I don't trust any of the news organizations anymore. Almost every one
> has been caught doing something like this when they can't get the real
> data to match the outcome they desire to report.
>
That would include most every academic and government research group as
well.

[Tom Sixkiller]

"James Robinson" > wrote in message
...
> >
> > Was is ABC or CBS that staged the Chevy pickup truck exploding gas tank?
>
> Neither. That was NBC.
>
> > I don't trust any of the news organizations anymore. Almost every one
> > has been caught doing something like this when they can't get the real
> > data to match the outcome they desire to report.
>
> You just have to be skeptical. At least there is an editorial board,
> and they have to answer to the FCC.

They don't to the FCC for the factual content of the reports. Where di you
get that idea?

> If you want manipulated data, just
> look at any number of sites on internet, which don't have to answer to
> anybody.

The ones on the internet answer to the same people as the mainstream
media -- the market they serve, and their credibility is at stake. That
reputation is something that bureaucrats can neither enhance, nor destroy.

[Dave Stadt]

"James Robinson" > wrote in message
...
> Matt Whiting wrote:
> >
> > James Robinson wrote:
> > > Joe Young wrote:
> > >
> > >>James Robinson wrote:
> > >>
> > >>>Joe Young wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>>Every poll shows the vast majority of the American public apposes
> > >>>>abortion. If that is the case in a democracy, shouldn't
> > >>>>the majority rule?
> > >>>
> > >>>I'm not sure what polls you are reading, but here is a link that
shows
> > >>>the opposite, i.e. support for legal abortions at about 53 percent,
and
> > >>>opposition at 43 percent. They state this has been the trend for at
> > >>>least the last decade.
> > >>>
> > >>>http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/poll010702.html
> > >>
> > >>This one seems to have some different stats?????........??
> > >>
> > >>http://christianparty.net/abortiongallup.htm
> > >
> > >
> > > I prefer ABC news as a less biased source than an advocacy group,
thank
> > > you.
> >
> > Was is ABC or CBS that staged the Chevy pickup truck exploding gas tank?
>
> Neither. That was NBC.
>
> > I don't trust any of the news organizations anymore. Almost every one
> > has been caught doing something like this when they can't get the real
> > data to match the outcome they desire to report.
>
> You just have to be skeptical. At least there is an editorial board,
> and they have to answer to the FCC.

Unless it involves a boob the FCC could care less what the networks
broadcast. They certainly do not monitor them for news accuracy. Most so
called news programs are actually entertainment programs.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
>
> Was is ABC or CBS that staged the Chevy pickup truck exploding
> gas tank? I don't trust any of the news organizations anymore.
> Almost every one has been caught doing something like this when
> they can't get the real data to match the outcome they desire to
> report.
>

That was "Dateline NBC".

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
>
> Right you are. I thought this came into being with the 16th amendment.
> That seems superfluous, given your reference above. Since article 1,
> section 8, clause 1 seems pretty general with regard to taxation, I'm
> now curious why the XVI amendment was necessary.
>

The 16th amendment was needed to allow a direct tax on income. Article 1,
section 2, clause 3 required direct taxes to be apportioned. The 16th
amendment states; "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on
incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the
several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration."

[Otis Winslow]

But only to the extent needed to support government operations. The problem
is all this charity crap and illegal redistribution of our assets.


"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > No originally.
> >
>
> Not originally? Of course it did. See article 1, section 8, clause 1.
>
>

[none]

>
> Really? Every poll I've seen supports abortion.
>
>

Have you noticed that the only people that advocate abortion are those that
have already been born?

-Doug

[Peter Gottlieb]

"none" > wrote in message
...
>
> Have you noticed that the only people that advocate abortion are those
that
> have already been born?
>
> -Doug


I love it how most discussion on the subject is done by men, who by some
coincidence, have never gone through pregnancy and childbirth.

[Jim Weir]

Back in those radical '60s, I was in a debate on abortion. A bishop asked one
of the debaters, a young lady, when she was going to give up her heretical
stance on abortion.

The answer came back, quick as a wink, "When either you or the Pope gets
pregnant."

{;-)

Jim



"Peter Gottlieb" >
shared these priceless pearls of wisdom:

->
->"none" > wrote in message
...
->>
->> Have you noticed that the only people that advocate abortion are those
->that
->> have already been born?
->>
->> -Doug
->
->
->I love it how most discussion on the subject is done by men, who by some
->coincidence, have never gone through pregnancy and childbirth.
->

Jim Weir (A&P/IA, CFI, & other good alphabet soup)
VP Eng RST Pres. Cyberchapter EAA Tech. Counselor
http://www.rst-engr.com

[TTA Cherokee Driver]

Peter Gottlieb wrote:

> "none" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Have you noticed that the only people that advocate abortion are those
>
> that
>
>>have already been born?
>>
>>-Doug
>
>
>
> I love it how most discussion on the subject is done by men, who by some
> coincidence, have never gone through pregnancy and childbirth.
>

How is that any different from the fact that for the most part the
people who decided to start our most recent war, avoided military
service themselves?

Hmm, seems to be a pattern developing here.

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Jim Weir" > wrote in message
...
> Back in those radical '60s, I was in a debate on abortion. A bishop asked
one
> of the debaters, a young lady, when she was going to give up her heretical
> stance on abortion.
>
> The answer came back, quick as a wink, "When either you or the Pope gets
> pregnant."
>
> {;-)

Latter day Immaculate Conception, huh? ;~}>

[Tom Sixkiller]

"TTA Cherokee Driver" > wrote in message
...
>
> How is that any different from the fact that for the most part the
> people who decided to start our most recent war, avoided military
> service themselves?

From what I've heard, Saddam Hussein was in the military, but Osama bin
Laden never was.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"TTA Cherokee Driver" > wrote in message
...
>
> How is that any different from the fact that for the most part the
> people who decided to start our most recent war, avoided military
> service themselves?
>

How did you figure that?

[none]

>
> How is that any different from the fact that for the most part the
> people who decided to start our most recent war, avoided military
> service themselves?
>
> Hmm, seems to be a pattern developing here.
>

Since there is no Military requirment to be President your statment is
inflamatory and un-just.

Tell us.. have you ever put your name on that line and signed up to take
a bullet for the freedoms that you enjoy today?

I have, Veteran of '91 Gulf War.... Same war where the UN told us that
the Iraq border was the stopping line and we couldnt go anyfarther..Iraq
said thanks by filling mass graves (400,000+ dead counted so far),
provinding 15,000 US dollars (UN Aid money) to each of the families of
successful Palenstine terrorists (Murders), medical care for AlQueda
(Zarqaui).. and the list goes on and on....

We in '91, put the people of Kuwait on the long list of Nations that
the US has freed from tyranny and now our Military and President can say
that they have freed another 25 million Iraqi people from the death grip
of a Tyrant.

So these "people" that have never served in the military and are
starting wars so far by my count have given freedom and the chance to
live without fear of being raped,tortured or murdered to approx 50-60
MILLION people.

its asses like you that destroy the good that this country is doing, you
state faceless, factless accusations and spit on the very freedoms that
people around the world are dying to get to each day. You are a sick
individual

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"none" > wrote in message
...
> >
> > How is that any different from the fact that for the most part the
> > people who decided to start our most recent war, avoided military
> > service themselves?
> >
> > Hmm, seems to be a pattern developing here.
> >
>
> Since there is no Military requirment to be President your statment is
> inflamatory and un-just.
>

Well, since the current President did serve in the military he clearly was
not referring to him.

[EDR]

This coming from an anonymous poster...

In article >, none
> wrote:

> Since there is no Military requirment to be President your statment is
> inflamatory and un-just.
>
> Tell us.. have you ever put your name on that line and signed up to take
> a bullet for the freedoms that you enjoy today?
>
> I have, Veteran of '91 Gulf War.... Same war where the UN told us that
> the Iraq border was the stopping line and we couldnt go anyfarther..Iraq
> said thanks by filling mass graves (400,000+ dead counted so far),
> provinding 15,000 US dollars (UN Aid money) to each of the families of
> successful Palenstine terrorists (Murders), medical care for AlQueda
> (Zarqaui).. and the list goes on and on....
>
> We in '91, put the people of Kuwait on the long list of Nations that
> the US has freed from tyranny and now our Military and President can say
> that they have freed another 25 million Iraqi people from the death grip
> of a Tyrant.
>
> So these "people" that have never served in the military and are
> starting wars so far by my count have given freedom and the chance to
> live without fear of being raped,tortured or murdered to approx 50-60
> MILLION people.
>
> its asses like you that destroy the good that this country is doing, you
> state faceless, factless accusations and spit on the very freedoms that
> people around the world are dying to get to each day. You are a sick
> individual

[Matt Whiting]

Peter Gottlieb wrote:

> "none" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Have you noticed that the only people that advocate abortion are those
>
> that
>
>>have already been born?
>>
>>-Doug
>
>
>
> I love it how most discussion on the subject is done by men, who by some
> coincidence, have never gone through pregnancy and childbirth.
>
>

So you are saying that only women can recognize murder?


Matt

[No Such User]

In article >, TTA Cherokee Driver wrote:
>
>How is that any different from the fact that for the most part the
>people who decided to start our most recent war, avoided military
>service themselves?
>
>Hmm, seems to be a pattern developing here.
>
Here's a pattern for you: of all the major leaders in World War II, only
one was a combat veteran. Which one was he? Hint: his first name was Adolf.

So what does prior military service do for a political leader? Use the
aforementioned Adolf as a case in your essay.

[G.R. Patterson III]

monitor point seven wrote:
>
> In article >,
> none > wrote:
>
> > >
> > > Really? Every poll I've seen supports abortion.
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Have you noticed that the only people that advocate abortion are those that
> > have already been born?
>
> That is the lamest rejoinder I've ever read.

Stolen from Pogo circa 1960.

George Patterson
None of us is as dumb as all of us.

[Tom Sixkiller]

"EDR" > wrote in message
...
>
> This coming from an anonymous poster...

So?

Attack the argument, not the poster.


>
> In article >, none
> > wrote:
>
> > Since there is no Military requirment to be President your statment is
> > inflamatory and un-just.
> >
> > Tell us.. have you ever put your name on that line and signed up to take
> > a bullet for the freedoms that you enjoy today?
> >
> > I have, Veteran of '91 Gulf War.... Same war where the UN told us that
> > the Iraq border was the stopping line and we couldnt go anyfarther..Iraq
> > said thanks by filling mass graves (400,000+ dead counted so far),
> > provinding 15,000 US dollars (UN Aid money) to each of the families of
> > successful Palenstine terrorists (Murders), medical care for AlQueda
> > (Zarqaui).. and the list goes on and on....
> >
> > We in '91, put the people of Kuwait on the long list of Nations that
> > the US has freed from tyranny and now our Military and President can say
> > that they have freed another 25 million Iraqi people from the death grip
> > of a Tyrant.
> >
> > So these "people" that have never served in the military and are
> > starting wars so far by my count have given freedom and the chance to
> > live without fear of being raped,tortured or murdered to approx 50-60
> > MILLION people.
> >
> > its asses like you that destroy the good that this country is doing, you
> > state faceless, factless accusations and spit on the very freedoms that
> > people around the world are dying to get to each day. You are a sick
> > individual

[Tom Sixkiller]

"No Such User" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, TTA Cherokee Driver wrote:
> >
> >How is that any different from the fact that for the most part the
> >people who decided to start our most recent war, avoided military
> >service themselves?
> >
> >Hmm, seems to be a pattern developing here.
> >
> Here's a pattern for you: of all the major leaders in World War II, only
> one was a combat veteran. Which one was he? Hint: his first name was
Adolf.

Well, so was Winston (Boer War), so was Benito, so were all the Japanese
leaders...

> So what does prior military service do for a political leader? Use the
> aforementioned Adolf as a case in your essay.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"No Such User" > wrote in message
...
>
> Here's a pattern for you: of all the major leaders in World War II, only
> one was a combat veteran. Which one was he? Hint: his first name
> was Adolf.
>

Churchill and Truman were combat veterans.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message
...
>
> Well, so was Winston (Boer War), so was Benito, so were all the Japanese
> leaders...
>

Churchill was a combat veteran, but not in the Boer War. His army career
included fighting at Omdurman in 1898 with the Nile Expeditionary Force.
During the Boer War he was a correspondent for a London newspaper.

I believe Mussolini was conscripted in to the Italian army but was injured
in training and released without ever seeing combat.

[OtisWinslow]

>
> So?
>
> Attack the argument, not the poster.
>
>

Attacking the poster is for when you have nothing to attack
the argument with. Consider the source.

[Doug]

EDR > wrote in
:

>
> This coming from an anonymous poster...
>

You may need to meet a hot lonely girl with your cheapest viagra on the net
but but I do not (for simpletons read: SpAm).. You got something to say to
me .. say it here...