Pilot's Political Orientation

[Chicken Bone]

Flightinfo.com asked for pilots political orientation.

Results:

Democrat 22.97%
Republican 57.24%
Ind. 19.79%

http://forums.flightinfo.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=21699


--
Liberalism is Communism one drink at a time. - P.J. O'Rourke

[Tony Cox]

"Chicken Bone" > wrote in message
news.com...
> Flightinfo.com asked for pilots political orientation.
>
> Results:
>
> Democrat 22.97%
> Republican 57.24%
> Ind. 19.79%
>

I suspect the results would have been more illuminating had
they included the Libertarians and Greens as options.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Tony Cox" > wrote in message
link.net...
>
> I suspect the results would have been more illuminating had
> they included the Libertarians and Greens as options.
>

How so? They'd both be included in the 19.79% that voted independent.

[Tony Cox]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
link.net...
>
> "Tony Cox" > wrote in message
> link.net...
> >
> > I suspect the results would have been more illuminating had
> > they included the Libertarians and Greens as options.
> >
>
> How so? They'd both be included in the 19.79% that voted independent.

Because "Ind." it isn't "Independent", its "Individual candidates/issues".
In any case, I don't think of the Libs or Greens "independent."

I'd have expected those who chose Libertarian would be
a substantially higher proportion than the general population and the
Greens substantially lower. Pilots are a self-reliant independent bunch,
keen on driving machines whose gas consumption puts SUV's to
shame.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Tony Cox" > wrote in message
link.net...
>
> Because "Ind." it isn't "Independent", its "Individual candidates/issues".
>

Big deal. Isn't an Independent a person that votes for individual
candidates and/or issues? The choices in this poll are essentially
Democrat, Republican, and Other.

[TTA Cherokee Driver]

Tony Cox wrote:

> "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
> link.net...
>
>>"Tony Cox" > wrote in message
link.net...
>>
>>>I suspect the results would have been more illuminating had
>>>they included the Libertarians and Greens as options.
>>>
>>
>>How so? They'd both be included in the 19.79% that voted independent.
>
>
> Because "Ind." it isn't "Independent", its "Individual candidates/issues".
> In any case, I don't think of the Libs or Greens "independent."
>
> I'd have expected those who chose Libertarian would be
> a substantially higher proportion than the general population and the
> Greens substantially lower. Pilots are a self-reliant independent bunch,

Sounds to me like pilots are a lot like farmers, sqawking for the gumbit
to cut their taxes and stay out of their "self-reliant" way, while
refusing to acknowledge (even to themselves) the massive government
spending, protection, and subsidies that make their activity
economically feasible.

(ducking)

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"TTA Cherokee Driver" > wrote in message
...
>
> Sounds to me like pilots are a lot like farmers, sqawking for the gumbit
> to cut their taxes and stay out of their "self-reliant" way, while
> refusing to acknowledge (even to themselves) the massive government
> spending, protection, and subsidies that make their activity
> economically feasible.
>

What is this massive government spending, protection, and subsidy that makes
flying economically feasible and what is the source?

[John Harlow]

Chicken Bone wrote:
> Flightinfo.com asked for pilots political orientation.

Weak troll, it's not hard to get this group riled up over politics.

What difference does political affiliation make anyway? People can still
have decent qualities despite being republicans.

;) <----

[Bill Denton]

How much did you pay the FAA last year, other than the same amount that
non-flyers in your tax bracket paid?


"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "TTA Cherokee Driver" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > Sounds to me like pilots are a lot like farmers, sqawking for the gumbit
> > to cut their taxes and stay out of their "self-reliant" way, while
> > refusing to acknowledge (even to themselves) the massive government
> > spending, protection, and subsidies that make their activity
> > economically feasible.
> >
>
> What is this massive government spending, protection, and subsidy that
makes
> flying economically feasible and what is the source?
>
>

[[email protected]]

In rec.aviation.owning Chicken Bone > wrote:
> Flightinfo.com asked for pilots political orientation.

> Results:

> Democrat 22.97%
> Republican 57.24%
> Ind. 19.79%

> http://forums.flightinfo.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=21699


> --
> Liberalism is Communism one drink at a time. - P.J. O'Rourke

If you are under thirty and aren't a Democrat, you have no heart.

If you are over thirty and aren't a Republican, you have no brain.

Or so I've been told...

--
Jim Pennino

Remove -spam-sux to reply.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Bill Denton" > wrote in message
...
>
> How much did you pay the FAA last year, other than the same
> amount that non-flyers in your tax bracket paid?
>

Considerably more, as the primary source of FAA funding is user taxes which
are not paid by non-flyers.

[Tony Cox]

> wrote in message
...
>
> If you are under thirty and aren't a Democrat, you have no heart.
>
> If you are over thirty and aren't a Republican, you have no brain.
>
> Or so I've been told...

Actually, it's another from Winston Churchill (who as I remember
changed political party himself, probably at age 30).

"Any man who is under 30, and is not a liberal, has no heart; and any man
who is over 30, and is not a conservative, has no brains."

[xyzzy]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

> "TTA Cherokee Driver" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Sounds to me like pilots are a lot like farmers, sqawking for the gumbit
>>to cut their taxes and stay out of their "self-reliant" way, while
>>refusing to acknowledge (even to themselves) the massive government
>>spending, protection, and subsidies that make their activity
>>economically feasible.
>>
>
>
> What is this massive government spending, protection, and subsidy that makes
> flying economically feasible and what is the source?
>
>

Who pays to build and maintain all those airports we fly out of?
Who pays to build and maintain all the navaids we depend on?
Who pays for all those air traffic controllers that are available for us
24/7?

etc. etc.

If you honestly think the user fees you pay in taxes on your 100LL cover
the cost of your use of this stuff, you are seriously fooling yourself.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"xyzzy" > wrote in message
...
>
> Who pays to build and maintain all those airports we fly out of?
>

We do.


>
> Who pays to build and maintain all the navaids we depend on?
>

We do.


>
> Who pays for all those air traffic controllers that are available for us
> 24/7?
>

We do.


>
> etc. etc.
>
> If you honestly think the user fees you pay in taxes on your
> 100LL cover the cost of your use of this stuff, you are
> seriously fooling yourself.
>

Am I? The last figures I saw had user fees covering about 85% of these
costs. Am I wrong?

[Gig Giacona]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
link.net...
>
> "Tony Cox" > wrote in message
> link.net...
> >
> > I suspect the results would have been more illuminating had
> > they included the Libertarians and Greens as options.
> >
>
> How so? They'd both be included in the 19.79% that voted independent.
>
>

Wrong, I'd bet the majority og the 19.79% voted either Dem or Republican in
the last election.

[Musky]

Churchill was a smart man, but I don't agree with him on this one. The
point seems to be that one's personal needs become more important than
the needs of the group after a certain age. I don't believe liberals
are that brainless, nor conservatives that heartless.

While it may happen to many people, for me it is nonsense. I am far
more liberal---and sure of myself in choosing so---since I turned 30.

Frankly since I began acquiring things like houses and airplanes, I have
realized how important these things are and how short life is. I have
realized that there is nothing magic about me that makes me deserve
these things more than other people.

I would rephrase it to say that anyone who is over 30 and is still a
liberal has done some important thinking about their rights and
responsibilities. Same goes for conservatives, I just don't agree with
the conclusions they came to. Que sera sera.


> Actually, it's another from Winston Churchill (who as I remember
> changed political party himself, probably at age 30).
>
> "Any man who is under 30, and is not a liberal, has no heart; and any man
> who is over 30, and is not a conservative, has no brains."
>
>

[Otis Winslow]

Why is it that Liberals always feel guilty for what they have? And even
more worrisome is why do Liberals feel guilty for what OTHERS have
and want to take it away from them and give it to someone who hasn't
managed to earn and have much.

There was a time when I didn't have anything. I worked hard and now
I have things. I want to keep them. They're mine. I don't want Liberals to
play
Robin Hood with my stuff and give it to those not inclined to get their
own stuff.

Liberal govt has no legal right to take stuff from one group and give it
to another. They have a right to take from us enough to operate govt and
provide for our physical security. That's it. No Robin Hood stuff.

They know that at some point we will have had enough and their **** will
be in the wind. THAT is why they don't want us to have guns. We will
use them to defend our stuff. Now THAT scares them Liberals.

The very guiltless and Libertarian Otis W.

"Musky" > wrote in message
...
> Churchill was a smart man, but I don't agree with him on this one. The
> point seems to be that one's personal needs become more important than
> the needs of the group after a certain age. I don't believe liberals
> are that brainless, nor conservatives that heartless.
>
> While it may happen to many people, for me it is nonsense. I am far
> more liberal---and sure of myself in choosing so---since I turned 30.
>
> Frankly since I began acquiring things like houses and airplanes, I have
> realized how important these things are and how short life is. I have
> realized that there is nothing magic about me that makes me deserve
> these things more than other people.
>
> I would rephrase it to say that anyone who is over 30 and is still a
> liberal has done some important thinking about their rights and
> responsibilities. Same goes for conservatives, I just don't agree with
> the conclusions they came to. Que sera sera.
>
>
> > Actually, it's another from Winston Churchill (who as I remember
> > changed political party himself, probably at age 30).
> >
> > "Any man who is under 30, and is not a liberal, has no heart; and any
man
> > who is over 30, and is not a conservative, has no brains."
> >
> >
>

[d b]

I only flew 150 hours last year.
I used an airport maintained (even partially) by taxpayers 3 times.
I used no navaids.

I'd say I didn't get my money's worth.




ticle >, xyzzy > wrote:

>> What is this massive government spending, protection, and subsidy that makes
>> flying economically feasible and what is the source?
>>
>>
>
>Who pays to build and maintain all those airports we fly out of?
>Who pays to build and maintain all the navaids we depend on?
>Who pays for all those air traffic controllers that are available for us
> 24/7?
>
>etc. etc.
>
>If you honestly think the user fees you pay in taxes on your 100LL cover
>the cost of your use of this stuff, you are seriously fooling yourself.
>

[Bob Noel]

In article >, xyzzy >
wrote:

> > What is this massive government spending, protection, and subsidy that
> > makes
> > flying economically feasible and what is the source?
> >
>
> Who pays to build and maintain all those airports we fly out of?
> Who pays to build and maintain all the navaids we depend on?
> Who pays for all those air traffic controllers that are available for us
> 24/7?
>
> etc. etc.
>
> If you honestly think the user fees you pay in taxes on your 100LL cover
> the cost of your use of this stuff, you are seriously fooling yourself.

If you think we need full strength 7000' runways for a cessna 150,
then you are seriously fooling yourself.

If you think we need 150' wide runways for a cessna 150, then
you are seriously fooling yourself.

If you think we need a full time control tower at most of our
fields, then you are seriously fooling yourself.

If you think we need radar coverage over (almost) all of CONUS, then you
are seriously fooling yourself.

You might want to consider how much money would be saved by the FAA
if tiny GA airplanes were to disappear.

--
Bob Noel

[Dave Stadt]

"xyzzy" > wrote in message
...
> Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
>
> > "TTA Cherokee Driver" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> >>Sounds to me like pilots are a lot like farmers, sqawking for the gumbit
> >>to cut their taxes and stay out of their "self-reliant" way, while
> >>refusing to acknowledge (even to themselves) the massive government
> >>spending, protection, and subsidies that make their activity
> >>economically feasible.
> >>
> >
> >
> > What is this massive government spending, protection, and subsidy that
makes
> > flying economically feasible and what is the source?
> >
> >
>
> Who pays to build and maintain all those airports we fly out of?

I do. Private, public access airport. Has never received a dime of
government money but does pay massive amounts of taxes. The vast majority
of airports I use are private, public acess airports.

> Who pays to build and maintain all the navaids we depend on?

I have no use for them. Get rid of them far as I am concerned.

> Who pays for all those air traffic controllers that are available for us
> 24/7?

I have no use for them and very, very, very seldom make use of them. They
could go away as far as I am concerned. Mostly they get in my way.

> etc. etc.
>
> If you honestly think the user fees you pay in taxes on your 100LL cover
> the cost of your use of this stuff, you are seriously fooling yourself.

I get back almost no services for the fuel taxes I pay.

[Dave Stadt]

"Otis Winslow" > wrote in message
.. .
> Why is it that Liberals always feel guilty for what they have? And even
> more worrisome is why do Liberals feel guilty for what OTHERS have
> and want to take it away from them and give it to someone who hasn't
> managed to earn and have much.
>
> There was a time when I didn't have anything. I worked hard and now
> I have things. I want to keep them. They're mine. I don't want Liberals to
> play
> Robin Hood with my stuff and give it to those not inclined to get their
> own stuff.
>
> Liberal govt has no legal right to take stuff from one group and give it
> to another. They have a right to take from us enough to operate govt and
> provide for our physical security. That's it. No Robin Hood stuff.
>
> They know that at some point we will have had enough and their **** will
> be in the wind. THAT is why they don't want us to have guns. We will
> use them to defend our stuff. Now THAT scares them Liberals.
>
> The very guiltless and Libertarian Otis W.

Didja ever notice how liberals are more than willing to take other peoples
assets and redistribute them but are more than willing to keep their assets
to themselves.

[Peter Gottlieb]

"Dave Stadt" > wrote in message
m...
>
> Didja ever notice how liberals are more than willing to take other peoples
> assets and redistribute them but are more than willing to keep their
assets
> to themselves.

And the "conservatives" are different, how?

[G.R. Patterson III]

xyzzy wrote:
>
> Who pays to build and maintain all those airports we fly out of?

Most of the ones I fly out of are privately built and owned.

> Who pays to build and maintain all the navaids we depend on?

Buddy, I can do without them if the Feds would free up the airspace and go away.

> Who pays for all those air traffic controllers that are available for us
> 24/7?

I don't use them.

> If you honestly think the user fees you pay in taxes on your 100LL cover
> the cost of your use of this stuff, you are seriously fooling yourself.

Bull****.

George Patterson
This marriage is off to a shaky start. The groom just asked the band to
play "Your cheatin' heart", and the bride just requested "Don't come home
a'drinkin' with lovin' on your mind".

[G.R. Patterson III]

wrote:
>
> If you are under thirty and aren't a Democrat, you have no heart.
>
> If you are over thirty and aren't a Republican, you have no brain.

The original is from Lord Chesterfield. "He who is not a revolutionary at sixteen has
no heart. He who is a revolutionary at sixty has no head."

George Patterson
This marriage is off to a shaky start. The groom just asked the band to
play "Your cheatin' heart", and the bride just requested "Don't come home
a'drinkin' with lovin' on your mind".

[Dan Truesdell]

I don't feel guilty. I feel fortunate. And I look at the whole
picture. I've worked hard to get a degree, develop a career, and have a
comfortable lifestyle (that fortunately includes a plane). However, I
also recognize that, due to the fact I grew up in a poor family in a
poor town, you all paid for half my college education. (I paid the
other half.) Thank you! That "Robin hood Government" you speak of took
a small piece of your hard earned money and invested it in me. Guess
what? I paid more in taxes last year than I received in 4 years of
financial aid. Sounds like a good investment to me. What did you get
for your money? A very productive member of society who recognizes
that, thanks to a government that believes that an educated populous is
critical, I am able to visit a doctor when I need one. And get a
plumber when I need one. DO you think that the oft-touted "Free Market
Economy" will generate all of the necessary services we all need and
use? Not likely. Only the ones that are profitable. Think of that the
next time you visit a government educated doctor. Or the next time you
kid goes to a government funded school. Or the factory in your town is
kept from dumping toxic waste in your backyard because a government
funded EPA official keeps them from doing it. I realize that there is
certainly waste in government, but let's keep the whole picture in mind.


Otis Winslow wrote:
> Why is it that Liberals always feel guilty for what they have? And even
> more worrisome is why do Liberals feel guilty for what OTHERS have
> and want to take it away from them and give it to someone who hasn't
> managed to earn and have much.
>
> There was a time when I didn't have anything. I worked hard and now
> I have things. I want to keep them. They're mine. I don't want Liberals to
> play
> Robin Hood with my stuff and give it to those not inclined to get their
> own stuff.
>
> Liberal govt has no legal right to take stuff from one group and give it
> to another. They have a right to take from us enough to operate govt and
> provide for our physical security. That's it. No Robin Hood stuff.
>
> They know that at some point we will have had enough and their **** will
> be in the wind. THAT is why they don't want us to have guns. We will
> use them to defend our stuff. Now THAT scares them Liberals.
>
> The very guiltless and Libertarian Otis W.
>
> "Musky" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Churchill was a smart man, but I don't agree with him on this one. The
>>point seems to be that one's personal needs become more important than
>>the needs of the group after a certain age. I don't believe liberals
>>are that brainless, nor conservatives that heartless.
>>
>>While it may happen to many people, for me it is nonsense. I am far
>>more liberal---and sure of myself in choosing so---since I turned 30.
>>
>>Frankly since I began acquiring things like houses and airplanes, I have
>>realized how important these things are and how short life is. I have
>>realized that there is nothing magic about me that makes me deserve
>>these things more than other people.
>>
>>I would rephrase it to say that anyone who is over 30 and is still a
>>liberal has done some important thinking about their rights and
>>responsibilities. Same goes for conservatives, I just don't agree with
>>the conclusions they came to. Que sera sera.
>>
>>
>>
>>>Actually, it's another from Winston Churchill (who as I remember
>>>changed political party himself, probably at age 30).
>>>
>>>"Any man who is under 30, and is not a liberal, has no heart; and any
>>
> man
>
>>>who is over 30, and is not a conservative, has no brains."
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>


--
Remove "2PLANES" to reply.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Peter Gottlieb" > wrote in message
et...
>
> And the "conservatives" are different, how?
>

Conservatives don't want to take other peoples assets and redistribute them.

[Jason Peterson]

The local small airport near me was bought by the government to stop it from
being bought by a home builder. Now tell me that it is the free market at
work there. The land is worth millions, but the government wants to keep it
an airport. I guess government spending is not so bad after all!!!

Jason


"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
link.net...
>
> "Bill Denton" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > How much did you pay the FAA last year, other than the same
> > amount that non-flyers in your tax bracket paid?
> >
>
> Considerably more, as the primary source of FAA funding is user taxes
which
> are not paid by non-flyers.
>
>

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Pete" > wrote in message
.com...
>
> No, they want to tell you what you can and can't do in your
> bedroom, and with your own body. They want to tell you who
> you can marry, demand you go to church, but then you catch
> them in a motel room doin' what they said not to do.
>
> Conservatives are a bunch of lying liars.
>

You've bought the propaganda.

The basic difference between conservatives and liberals is their position on
freedom. Conservatives are fer it, liberals are agin' it.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Jason Peterson" > wrote in message
...
>
> The local small airport near me was bought by the government to
> stop it from being bought by a home builder. Now tell me that it is
> the free market at work there. The land is worth millions, but the
> government wants to keep it an airport. I guess government
> spending is not so bad after all!!!
>

Why did the airport owner sell the airport to the government instead of the
developer?

[Matthew S. Whiting]

Jason Peterson wrote:
> The local small airport near me was bought by the government to stop it from
> being bought by a home builder. Now tell me that it is the free market at
> work there. The land is worth millions, but the government wants to keep it
> an airport. I guess government spending is not so bad after all!!!

Free markets are a good in a great many ways, but they are far from
perfect. Basic infrastructure is one area where they fall down. If we
only got roads and bridges from a free market economy, you would only
have paved roads between major urban centers and nothing in the country.
Likewise with power and communication services. Same with airports.
Another area where free markets would fail us would be pollution.

Government involvement is necessary in certain areas, but I believe we
have moved beyond those areas and that is the problem.


Matt

[[email protected]]

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

Am I? The last figures I saw had user fees covering about 85% of these

> costs. Am I wrong?

Most of it comes from taxes on airline tickets.

The average G/A guy who flys a Cessna 182 100 hours a year doesn't begin to
pay for the system.

[Matthew S. Whiting]

wrote:
>
> "Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:
>
> Am I? The last figures I saw had user fees covering about 85% of these
>
>
>>costs. Am I wrong?
>
>
> Most of it comes from taxes on airline tickets.
>
> The average G/A guy who flys a Cessna 182 100 hours a year doesn't begin to
> pay for the system.
>

But he doesn't need much of the system either. He needs a few grass
runways, and a good map and compass! :-)


Matt

[Judah]

You mean there is a difference between Democrats and Republicans besides
which state the accent is from?


"Chicken Bone" > wrote in
news.com:

> Flightinfo.com asked for pilots political orientation.
>
> Results:
>
> Democrat 22.97%
> Republican 57.24%
> Ind. 19.79%
>
> http://forums.flightinfo.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=21699
>
>

[Judah]

Correct. They want to just take other peoples assets and keep them.

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in
ink.net:

>
> "Peter Gottlieb" > wrote in message
> et...
>>
>> And the "conservatives" are different, how?
>>
>
> Conservatives don't want to take other peoples assets and redistribute
> them.
>
>

[Philip Sondericker]

in article . net, Steven P.
McNicoll at wrote on 4/17/04 4:34 AM:

>
> "Pete" > wrote in message
> .com...
>>
>> No, they want to tell you what you can and can't do in your
>> bedroom, and with your own body. They want to tell you who
>> you can marry, demand you go to church, but then you catch
>> them in a motel room doin' what they said not to do.
>>
>> Conservatives are a bunch of lying liars.
>>
>
> You've bought the propaganda.
>
> The basic difference between conservatives and liberals is their position on
> freedom. Conservatives are fer it, liberals are agin' it.

I notice that Rush Limbaugh hasn't objected too strongly to the ACLU leaping
to his defense.

Then again, he may be high. lol

[Philip Sondericker]

in article et, Steven P.
McNicoll at wrote on 4/16/04 10:04 PM:

>
> "Peter Gottlieb" > wrote in message
> et...
>>
>> And the "conservatives" are different, how?
>>
>
> Conservatives don't want to take other peoples assets and redistribute them.

Errr, then explain again how we're financing the current war?

[Philip Sondericker]

in article , Dan Truesdell at
wrote on 4/16/04 6:32 PM:

> I don't feel guilty. I feel fortunate. And I look at the whole
> picture. I've worked hard to get a degree, develop a career, and have a
> comfortable lifestyle (that fortunately includes a plane). However, I
> also recognize that, due to the fact I grew up in a poor family in a
> poor town, you all paid for half my college education. (I paid the
> other half.) Thank you! That "Robin hood Government" you speak of took
> a small piece of your hard earned money and invested it in me. Guess
> what? I paid more in taxes last year than I received in 4 years of
> financial aid. Sounds like a good investment to me. What did you get
> for your money? A very productive member of society who recognizes
> that, thanks to a government that believes that an educated populous is
> critical, I am able to visit a doctor when I need one. And get a
> plumber when I need one. DO you think that the oft-touted "Free Market
> Economy" will generate all of the necessary services we all need and
> use? Not likely. Only the ones that are profitable. Think of that the
> next time you visit a government educated doctor. Or the next time you
> kid goes to a government funded school. Or the factory in your town is
> kept from dumping toxic waste in your backyard because a government
> funded EPA official keeps them from doing it. I realize that there is
> certainly waste in government, but let's keep the whole picture in mind.

Wow, a bit of calm, rational sense. Thank you.

[Ricky Robbins]

On Sat, 17 Apr 2004 11:34:05 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote:

>
>"Pete" > wrote in message
.com...
>>
>> Conservatives are a bunch of lying liars.
>
>You've bought the propaganda.

Ha. No doubt about that. He's using Al Franken phrases, for goodness
sake.

Ricky

[[email protected]]

"Matthew S. Whiting" wrote:

> > The average G/A guy who flys a Cessna 182 100 hours a year doesn't begin to
> > pay for the system.
> >
>
> But he doesn't need much of the system either. He needs a few grass
> runways, and a good map and compass! :-)
>
> Matt

Well, although that may be true for you, there are lots of Cessna 182's that make
a lot of instrument approaches at airports with control towers. Or, even
instrument approaches at airports without control towers; all supported by center
equipment, controllers, FAA approach designers, expensive flight inspections,
etc., etc.

[Bob Noel]

In article >, wrote:

> > But he doesn't need much of the system either. He needs a few grass
> > runways, and a good map and compass! :-)
> >
> > Matt
>
> Well, although that may be true for you, there are lots of Cessna 182's
> that make
> a lot of instrument approaches at airports with control towers. Or, even
> instrument approaches at airports without control towers; all supported
> by center
> equipment, controllers, FAA approach designers, expensive flight
> inspections,
> etc., etc.

All of which would have been done whether or not those C-182's flew
those approaches. iow - no extra costs were incurred because of
those approaches.

--
Bob Noel

[[email protected]]

Bob Noel wrote:

> In article >, wrote:
>
> > > But he doesn't need much of the system either. He needs a few grass
> > > runways, and a good map and compass! :-)
> > >
> > > Matt
> >
> > Well, although that may be true for you, there are lots of Cessna 182's
> > that make
> > a lot of instrument approaches at airports with control towers. Or, even
> > instrument approaches at airports without control towers; all supported
> > by center
> > equipment, controllers, FAA approach designers, expensive flight
> > inspections,
> > etc., etc.
>
> All of which would have been done whether or not those C-182's flew
> those approaches. iow - no extra costs were incurred because of
> those approaches.

Well....that is true for the cost of the center building. It isn't necessarily
true where an approach control serves what is primarily a general aviation
airport. And, it certainly isn't true for instrument approach procedures
established for airports that have no commercial traffic (which is many, many
more instrument approach procedures than those established for airports with
mostly, or some, commercial operations.

[darwin smith]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

>"Pete" > wrote in message
.com...
>
>
>>No, they want to tell you what you can and can't do in your
>>bedroom, and with your own body. They want to tell you who
>>you can marry, demand you go to church, but then you catch
>>them in a motel room doin' what they said not to do.
>>
>>Conservatives are a bunch of lying liars.
>>
>>
>>
>
>You've bought the propaganda.
>
>The basic difference between conservatives and liberals is their position on
>freedom. Conservatives are fer it, liberals are agin' it.
>
Actually, you've over-simplified the situation. Both conservatives and
liberals are for
freedom - as long as it's to do things they agree with! Both
conservatives and liberals
are against freedom - when it comes to things they disagree with!

Frankly, I'm getting tired of people using the terms "liberal" and
"conservative" as if they
had any meaning. They're simply ways of casting ones self as one of the
"good guys" - while
at the same time belittling one's opponents - used by those too lazy to
argue the merits of
an issue. For a case in point, see the words "You've bought the
propaganda" printed above.

Rich Lemert

[[email protected]]

On 16-Apr-2004, "Tony Cox" > wrote:

> I'd have expected those who chose Libertarian would be
> a substantially higher proportion than the general population and the
> Greens substantially lower. Pilots are a self-reliant independent bunch,
> keen on driving machines whose gas consumption puts SUV's to
> shame.


Taking into account that I can fly from point A to point B in a straight
line (rather than following a highway), my Arrow gets about the same fuel
efficiency (at 65% cruise) as a typical sedan. A Mooney would do even
better.

--
-Elliott Drucker

[C J Campbell]

"Chicken Bone" > wrote in message
news.com...
> Flightinfo.com asked for pilots political orientation.
>
> Results:
>
> Democrat 22.97%
> Republican 57.24%
> Ind. 19.79%
>
> http://forums.flightinfo.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=21699
>
>
> --
> Liberalism is Communism one drink at a time. - P.J. O'Rourke

Seems a number of people have forgotten that liberalism has abandoned
liberal principles. Modern liberalism is just monarchy dressed up in new
clothes. It was not so long ago that the people who today call themselves
liberals were called aristocrats and Tories.

[C J Campbell]

"Gig Giacona" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
> link.net...
> >
> > "Tony Cox" > wrote in message
> > link.net...
> > >
> > > I suspect the results would have been more illuminating had
> > > they included the Libertarians and Greens as options.
> > >
> >
> > How so? They'd both be included in the 19.79% that voted independent.
> >
> >
>
> Wrong, I'd bet the majority og the 19.79% voted either Dem or Republican
in
> the last election.

Most people who claim to be independents --- aren't.

[Matthew S. Whiting]

wrote:
>
> "Matthew S. Whiting" wrote:
>
>
>>>The average G/A guy who flys a Cessna 182 100 hours a year doesn't begin to
>>>pay for the system.
>>>
>>
>>But he doesn't need much of the system either. He needs a few grass
>>runways, and a good map and compass! :-)
>>
>>Matt
>
>
> Well, although that may be true for you, there are lots of Cessna 182's that make
> a lot of instrument approaches at airports with control towers. Or, even
> instrument approaches at airports without control towers; all supported by center
> equipment, controllers, FAA approach designers, expensive flight inspections,
> etc., etc.
>
>

Yes, I did that for years when I owned my 182, the the comment said the
"average" G/A guy. The average G/A pilot doesn't fly IFR very often at all.


Matt

[[email protected]]

> Actually, it's another from Winston Churchill (who as I remember
> changed political party himself, probably at age 30).

Actually, it's probably not. This from the authoritative Churchill Centre
website http://www.winstonchurchill.org/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageid=112:

"If you're not a liberal when you're 25, you have no heart. If you're not a
conservative by the time you're 35, you have no brain." There is no record
of anyone hearing Churchill say this. Paul Addison of Edinburgh University
makes this comment: "Surely Churchill can't have used the words attributed
to him. He'd been a Conservative at 15 and a Liberal at 35! And would he
have talked so disrespectfully of [his wife] Clemmie, who is generally
thought to have been a lifelong Liberal?"

--
-Elliott Drucker

[[email protected]]

"Matthew S. Whiting" wrote:

>
>
> Yes, I did that for years when I owned my 182, the the comment said the
> "average" G/A guy. The average G/A pilot doesn't fly IFR very often at all.
>
> Matt

If that's the case, why does AOPA continue to push so hard for all those GPS approaches
to small airports?

[Matthew S. Whiting]

wrote:
>
> "Matthew S. Whiting" wrote:
>
>
>>
>>Yes, I did that for years when I owned my 182, the the comment said the
>>"average" G/A guy. The average G/A pilot doesn't fly IFR very often at all.
>>
>>Matt
>
>
> If that's the case, why does AOPA continue to push so hard for all those GPS approaches
> to small airports?
>
>

Because they support all GA aviation, not just the average 182 pilot.

Matt

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Judah" > wrote in message
...
>
> Correct. They want to just take other peoples assets and keep them.
>

Wrong. Conservatives don't want to take other peoples assets at all.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Philip Sondericker" > wrote in message
...
>
> Errr, then explain again how we're financing the current war?
>

Do you think redistributing other peoples assets is financing the war?

[Doug Carter]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> "Peter Gottlieb" > wrote in message
> et...
>
>>And the "conservatives" are different, how?

Conservatives object to excessive government spending,
especially when it is used to force social engineering.
Brian Riedl at the Heritage Foundation notes (quoted in part):

The federal government is projected to spend $21,671 per
household in 2004 — the most since World War II and $3,500
more than in 2001. Here is a breakdown of where that
$21,671 goes:

-Social Security and Medicare: $7,165
-Low-income programs: $3,479
-Interest on the federal debt: $1,460
-Federal employee retirement benefits: $835
-Unemployment benefits: $451
-Interest on the federal debt: $1,460

-Defense: $4,240, Veterans benefits: $565

-Health research and regulation: $619
-Education: $583
-Highways and mass transit: $400
-Justice administration: $389
-International affairs: $320

The programs listed above cover $20,506 per household. The
remaining $1,165 is allocated to all other federal
programs, including farm subsidies, environmental
programs, space exploration, air transportation and
community development.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Pete" > wrote in message
...
>
> Then why the fight against gay marriage?
>

What fight against gay marriage?


>
> Why the fight against abortion?
>

Because all current abortion methods kill a child. When an abortion
procedure is developed that does not kill the child the fight against
abortion will end.


>
> Why the fight against pr0n?
>


What's pr0n?


>
> Conservatives are all for the rights of corporations to dump waste oil
> into fresh water supplies, for the rights of employers to force their
> workers to take horrrible physical risks and then not be compensated
> when they're injured.
>
> They're in favor of telling women what they can do with their bodies, in
> favor of snooping in private bedrooms, in favor of snooping on people's
> computers.
>
> The way things are going, the only good conservative, is a dead one, and
> in case you're wondering, I'm 53 years old. I see what happens when
> idiots like Chimpie are in power. Or evil criminals like Reagan and
> Nixon.
>

As I said, you've bought the propaganda and rejected the facts. Open your
eyes, open your mind.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...
>
> Seems a number of people have forgotten that liberalism has abandoned
> liberal principles. Modern liberalism is just monarchy dressed up in new
> clothes. It was not so long ago that the people who today call themselves
> liberals were called aristocrats and Tories.
>

Bingo. Few people today understand the differences between classic
liberalism and modern liberalism. They are polar opposites.

[[email protected]]

"Matthew S. Whiting" wrote:

> wrote:
> >
> > "Matthew S. Whiting" wrote:
> >
> >
> >>
> >>Yes, I did that for years when I owned my 182, the the comment said the
> >>"average" G/A guy. The average G/A pilot doesn't fly IFR very often at all.
> >>
> >>Matt
> >
> >
> > If that's the case, why does AOPA continue to push so hard for all those GPS approaches
> > to small airports?
> >
> >
>
> Because they support all GA aviation, not just the average 182 pilot.
>
> Matt

Earlier you said "average G/A" pilot, now you're saying "average 182 pilot." So, does that
mean that G/A, overall, needs all those small airport GPS approaches?

[C J Campbell]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
link.net...
>
> "C J Campbell" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > Seems a number of people have forgotten that liberalism has abandoned
> > liberal principles. Modern liberalism is just monarchy dressed up in new
> > clothes. It was not so long ago that the people who today call
themselves
> > liberals were called aristocrats and Tories.
> >
>
> Bingo. Few people today understand the differences between classic
> liberalism and modern liberalism. They are polar opposites.

I think it is funny as heck that liberals like to compare JFK's
administration to Camelot. Shows what their real values are.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

> wrote in message ...
>
> Most of it comes from taxes on airline tickets.
>

And airlines generate most of the costs.


>
> The average G/A guy who flys a Cessna 182 100 hours a year
> doesn't begin to pay for the system.
>

The average G/A who flies a Cessna 182 100 hours a year doesn't begin to
burden the system.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

> wrote in message ...
>
> Well, although that may be true for you, there are lots of Cessna
> 182's that make a lot of instrument approaches at airports with
> control towers. Or, even instrument approaches at airports
> without control towers; all supported by center equipment,
> controllers, FAA approach designers, expensive flight inspections,
> etc., etc.
>

How many control towers would be shut down if those Cessna 182s did not
exist? How many approaches could be dropped if those Cessna 182s did not
exist? How many centers could be shut down? How many controllers could be
terminated? Etc., etc., etc.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

> wrote in message ...
>
> Well....that is true for the cost of the center building. It isn't
> necessarily true where an approach control serves what is
> primarily a general aviation airport.
>

What's a primarily general aviation airport? One where the majority of the
traffic is general aviation? Yup, there are plenty of airports with
approach control facilities that have more general aviation traffic than air
carrier traffic, but there aren't very many that would have approach control
facilities if the airlines weren't there.


>
> And, it certainly isn't true for instrument approach procedures
> established for airports that have no commercial traffic (which is
> many, many more instrument approach procedures than those
> established for airports with mostly, or some, commercial
> operations.
>

Yup. But a lot of those airports that have no commercial traffic today are
airports that formerly had commercial traffic and exist only because they
were built for the purpose of commercial traffic.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...
>
> I think it is funny as heck that liberals like to compare JFK's
> administration to Camelot. Shows what their real values are.
>

I think it odd that Democrats call their party the party of Jefferson. If
Jefferson was alive today he'd be vilified by Democrats as a right wing
extremist.

[Dan Luke]

"C J Campbell" wrote:
> Seems a number of people have forgotten that liberalism has
> abandoned liberal principles.

Yup, and it's distressing to see conservatism in America is doing the
same thing WRT conservative principles.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Dan Luke" > wrote in message
...
>
> Yup, and it's distressing to see conservatism in America is doing the
> same thing WRT conservative principles.
>

Bingo again.

[Dan Luke]

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:
> I think it odd that Democrats call their party the party of
> Jefferson. If Jefferson was alive today he'd be vilified by
> Democrats as a right wing extremist.

He'd also be vilified by Republicans as a godless libertine. Free
thinkers are despised by both parties.

". shake off all the fears and servile prejudices, under which weak
minds are servilely crouched. Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to
her tribunal every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the
existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of
the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear."
-Thomas Jefferson
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

[Bob Noel]

In article >, wrote:

> >
> > All of which would have been done whether or not those C-182's flew
> > those approaches. iow - no extra costs were incurred because of
> > those approaches.
>
> Well....that is true for the cost of the center building. It isn't
> necessarily
> true where an approach control serves what is primarily a general
> aviation
> airport. And, it certainly isn't true for instrument approach procedures
> established for airports that have no commercial traffic (which is many,
> many
> more instrument approach procedures than those established for airports
> with
> mostly, or some, commercial operations.
>

How many? have you counted them?

--
Bob Noel

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Dan Luke" > wrote in message
...
>
> He'd also be vilified by Republicans as a godless libertine.
>

Jefferson godless?

[C J Campbell]

"Dan Luke" > wrote in message
...
> "C J Campbell" wrote:
> > Seems a number of people have forgotten that liberalism has
> > abandoned liberal principles.
>
> Yup, and it's distressing to see conservatism in America is doing the
> same thing WRT conservative principles.
> --

Modern conservatives are not traditional conservatives any more than modern
liberals are traditional liberals. Conservatives today seem to be a motley
mix of radicals, anarchists, and brigands. It is especially weird to see the
party of Lincoln (as it calls itself) almost completely taken over by
racists and xenophobes.

I never did figure out how the Democrats, who supported slavery and
generally opposed any form of equal rights, managed to hijack that issue
from the Republicans, who fought to free the slaves, passed the Equal
Housing Act, and enacted many other such reforms. Nor have I figured out how
the Democrats managed to hijack environmentalism from the Teddy Roosevelt
Republicans.

So now you have 'conservatives' running around talking about property rights
and states' rights (originally created to protect slavery) and protecting
large corporations while espousing populist principles. And you have the
'liberals' running around trying to limit free speech and press, disarming
the public, and supporting the worst thugs and despots imaginable in other
countries in the name of 'diversity' and 'tolerance.'

[C J Campbell]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
link.net...
>
> "Dan Luke" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > He'd also be vilified by Republicans as a godless libertine.
> >
>
> Jefferson godless?

Apparently deists are thought to be godless.

[MRQB]

Wish the government would buy 2 airports near me, 1 airport's runway housing
semi trailers the other is going to be destroyed by a developer that will
only leave 1 airport here that the city owns but for how long who knows?


"Jason Peterson" > wrote in message
...
> The local small airport near me was bought by the government to stop it
from
> being bought by a home builder. Now tell me that it is the free market at
> work there. The land is worth millions, but the government wants to keep
it
> an airport. I guess government spending is not so bad after all!!!
>
> Jason
>
>
> "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
> link.net...
> >
> > "Bill Denton" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > How much did you pay the FAA last year, other than the same
> > > amount that non-flyers in your tax bracket paid?
> > >
> >
> > Considerably more, as the primary source of FAA funding is user taxes
> which
> > are not paid by non-flyers.
> >
> >
>
>

[Dan Luke]

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:
> > He'd also be vilified by Republicans as a godless libertine.
> >
>
> Jefferson godless?

He wasn't, of course. And I should have said "many Republicans," since
the influence of Bible-inerrancy believing fundamentalists has not
entirely pervaded the party.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

[darwin smith]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

>"Pete" > wrote in message
...
>
>
>>Then why the fight against gay marriage?
>>
>>
>>
>
>What fight against gay marriage?
>
You've just gone a long way toward's blowing whatever credibility you
might have
with this statement.

>
>
>
>
>>Why the fight against abortion?
>>
>>
>>
>
>Because all current abortion methods kill a child. When an abortion
>procedure is developed that does not kill the child the fight against
>abortion will end.
>
Actually, there are several methods available that already are acting
to prevent abortions,
with Planned Parenthood being one of their leading proponents. The fall
under the general
category of "birth control procedures", and people generally learn about
them through
something called "sex education".

While I am firmly pro-choice, I am willing to admit that the
anti-abortion side (which is
not necessarily pro-life, so I won't call it such) does have a point.
Most anti-abortionists
I've encountered, though, have absolutely no interest in preventing the
procedure. What
they want to do is _stop_ it, because prevention is much harder and
involves other
things that the anti-abortionists are uncomfortable with - things like
making sure that
teenagers know the "facts of life", or that all women have affordable
access to birth
control and health care.

If you've waited until little Debbie is pregnant, you've lost your
chance to prevent an
abortion, period. All you can do now is stop it, but don't call it
prevention.

Rich Lemert

>
>

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"darwin smith" > wrote in message
link.net...
>
> You've just gone a long way toward's blowing whatever credibility you
> might have
> with this statement.
>

It wasn't a statement, it was a question, and one that apparently stumped
you.


>
> Actually, there are several methods available that already are acting
> to prevent abortions,
> with Planned Parenthood being one of their leading proponents. The fall >
under the general
> category of "birth control procedures", and people generally learn about >
them through
> something called "sex education".
>

Those are not abortion procedures.


>
> While I am firmly pro-choice,
>

You are firmly pro-murder, for that is what abortion is at present.


>
> I am willing to admit that the
> anti-abortion side (which is
> not necessarily pro-life, so I won't call it such) does have a point.
>

Anti-abortion IS pro-life.

[Philip Sondericker]

in article . net, Steven P.
McNicoll at wrote on 4/17/04 1:10 PM:

>
> "Philip Sondericker" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> Errr, then explain again how we're financing the current war?
>>
>
> Do you think redistributing other peoples assets is financing the war?

No, I think that redistributing my assets is financing the war.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Philip Sondericker" > wrote in message
...
>
> No, I think that redistributing my assets is financing the war.
>

What caused you to think that?

[Philip Sondericker]

in article . net, Steven P.
McNicoll at wrote on 4/17/04 3:49 PM:

>
> "Philip Sondericker" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> No, I think that redistributing my assets is financing the war.
>>
>
> What caused you to think that?

Whose money are we using--the Belgian's?

[Ray Andraka]

I get better gas mileage in my '65 Cherokee Six than a Hummer gets on the
highway, 153 MPH at 14 GPH => 10.9 miles per gallon (statute miles). It is
also better mileage than my first car got, which was from nearly the same
time...a loaded '67 Ford LTD sedan that had a 390 cu in engine that drank 96
Octane minimum. I think LTD stood for Ford's Light Tank Division.

wrote:

> On 16-Apr-2004, "Tony Cox" > wrote:
>
> > I'd have expected those who chose Libertarian would be
> > a substantially higher proportion than the general population and the
> > Greens substantially lower. Pilots are a self-reliant independent bunch,
> > keen on driving machines whose gas consumption puts SUV's to
> > shame.
>
> Taking into account that I can fly from point A to point B in a straight
> line (rather than following a highway), my Arrow gets about the same fuel
> efficiency (at 65% cruise) as a typical sedan. A Mooney would do even
> better.
>
> --
> -Elliott Drucker

--
--Ray Andraka, P.E.
President, the Andraka Consulting Group, Inc.
401/884-7930 Fax 401/884-7950
email
http://www.andraka.com

"They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little
temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-Benjamin Franklin, 1759

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Philip Sondericker" > wrote in message
...
>
> Whose money are we using--the Belgian's?
>

Did you not understand the question?

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Ray Andraka" > wrote in message
...
>
> I get better gas mileage in my '65 Cherokee Six than a Hummer
> gets on the highway, 153 MPH at 14 GPH => 10.9 miles per
> gallon (statute miles).
>

Gee, that's something to boast about, a vehicle that gets better gas mileage
than a Hummer.

[darwin smith]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

>"darwin smith" > wrote in message
link.net...
>
>
>> You've just gone a long way toward's blowing whatever credibility you
>>might have
>>with this statement.
>>
>>
>>
>
>It wasn't a statement, it was a question, and one that apparently stumped
>you.
>
It was a question asked in such a way as to imply that the "answer"
was completely
obvious - there is no fight against gay marraige. I therefore treated
the comment as
a statement being expressed in the form of a rhetorical question.

Now, I would guess that to you the answer to your "question" is
perfectly obvious -
there is no fight against gay marriage. If this is so, then could you
please explain to me
why the Republican efforts in Massachussetts to ban same-sex unions, and
"Bush the
Lesser's" proposed constitutional amendment are not "fights against gay
marriage"/

>> Actually, there are several methods available that already are acting
>>to prevent abortions,
>>with Planned Parenthood being one of their leading proponents. The fall >
>>
>>
>under the general
>
>
>>category of "birth control procedures", and people generally learn about >
>>
>>
>them through
>
>
>>something called "sex education".
>>
>>
>>
>
>Those are not abortion procedures.
>
>
>
>
>> While I am firmly pro-choice,
>>
>>
>>
>
>You are firmly pro-murder, for that is what abortion is at present.
>
I disagree, obviously, but as I say below I can understand your view.

>
>
>
>
>>I am willing to admit that the
>>anti-abortion side (which is
>>not necessarily pro-life, so I won't call it such) does have a point.
>>
>>
>>
>
>Anti-abortion IS pro-life.
>
Even when there is no exception to save the life of the mother?

By the way, I see that you didn't bother to address my comments about
birth control,
sex education, and generally being around when Suzy really needs the
help. Let me
know when you're ready and willing to discuss the _complete_ topic of
abortion,
and have moved beyond just casting judgement on those who happen to disagree
with you.

Rich Lemert

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"darwin smith" > wrote in message
hlink.net...
>
> It was a question asked in such a way as to imply that the "answer"
> was completely
> obvious - there is no fight against gay marraige.
>

There isn't. Gays marry regularly and have done so for quite some time.


>
> I therefore treated
> the comment as
> a statement being expressed in the form of a rhetorical question.
>
> Now, I would guess that to you the answer to your "question" is
> perfectly obvious -
> there is no fight against gay marriage. If this is so, then could you
> please explain to me
> why the Republican efforts in Massachussetts to ban same-sex unions, and
> "Bush the
> Lesser's" proposed constitutional amendment are not "fights against gay
> marriage"/
>

Gay marriage is not the same as same-sex marriage.


>
> I disagree, obviously, but as I say below I can understand your view.
>

All abortion procedures performed today cause the deliberate death of the
child. That is murder by any reasonable definition.


>
> Even when there is no exception to save the life of the mother?
>
> By the way, I see that you didn't bother to address my comments about
> birth control,
> sex education, and generally being around when Suzy really needs the
> help. Let me
> know when you're ready and willing to discuss the _complete_ topic of
> abortion,
> and have moved beyond just casting judgement on those who happen to
disagree
> with you.
>

Those things are not abortion procedures. We were discussing abortion
procedures.

[Matt Whiting]

wrote:
>
> "Matthew S. Whiting" wrote:
>
>
wrote:
>>
>>>"Matthew S. Whiting" wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Yes, I did that for years when I owned my 182, the the comment said the
>>>>"average" G/A guy. The average G/A pilot doesn't fly IFR very often at all.
>>>>
>>>>Matt
>>>
>>>
>>>If that's the case, why does AOPA continue to push so hard for all those GPS approaches
>>>to small airports?
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Because they support all GA aviation, not just the average 182 pilot.
>>
>>Matt
>
>
> Earlier you said "average G/A" pilot, now you're saying "average 182 pilot." So, does that
> mean that G/A, overall, needs all those small airport GPS approaches?
>
>

I was following the comment that was in an earlier message in this
thread, that I think you wrote, that said "The average G/A guy who flys
a Cessna 182 100 hours a year doesn't begin to pay for the system."

Matt

[Matt Whiting]

darwin smith wrote:
> Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
>
>> "Pete" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>
>>> Then why the fight against gay marriage?
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> What fight against gay marriage?
>>
> You've just gone a long way toward's blowing whatever credibility you
> might have
> with this statement.
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> Why the fight against abortion?
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> Because all current abortion methods kill a child. When an abortion
>> procedure is developed that does not kill the child the fight against
>> abortion will end.
>>
> Actually, there are several methods available that already are acting
> to prevent abortions,
> with Planned Parenthood being one of their leading proponents. The fall
> under the general
> category of "birth control procedures", and people generally learn about
> them through
> something called "sex education".
>
> While I am firmly pro-choice, I am willing to admit that the
> anti-abortion side (which is
> not necessarily pro-life, so I won't call it such) does have a point.

Yes, just like pro-choice sounds a lot better than pro-death, which is
what the position really is.


> Most anti-abortionists
> I've encountered, though, have absolutely no interest in preventing the
> procedure. What
> they want to do is _stop_ it, because prevention is much harder and
> involves other
> things that the anti-abortionists are uncomfortable with - things like
> making sure that
> teenagers know the "facts of life", or that all women have affordable
> access to birth
> control and health care.
>
> If you've waited until little Debbie is pregnant, you've lost your
> chance to prevent an
> abortion, period. All you can do now is stop it, but don't call it
> prevention.

Abstinence is strongly supported by all pro-life groups that I'm aware
of and it is the only 100% means to prevent Debbie from getting pregnant.


Matt

[Matt Whiting]

darwin smith wrote:
> Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

>> Anti-abortion IS pro-life.
>>
> Even when there is no exception to save the life of the mother?

Many conservatives have agreed to this exception. However, it isn't all
that clear as very few cases are such that the mother's life is
guaranteed to be at risk. The baby's life IS guaranteed to be at risk
in an abortion. So even with this exception, you are still guaranteeing
a death to save the possibility of a death. I'm still not sure that is
a good moral position to aspire to, but at least it is better than most
abortions which are simply murder for the sake of convenience. That
isn't morally acceptable.


Matt

[Judah]

How, exactly, do the rich get richer without taking other people's assets?


"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in
link.net:

>
> "Judah" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> Correct. They want to just take other peoples assets and keep them.
>>
>
> Wrong. Conservatives don't want to take other peoples assets at all.
>
>
>

[Judah]

What, exactly, then, do conservatives want?


"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in
link.net:

>
> "Judah" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> Correct. They want to just take other peoples assets and keep them.
>>
>
> Wrong. Conservatives don't want to take other peoples assets at all.
>
>

[Dave Stadt]

"Judah" > wrote in message
...
> How, exactly, do the rich get richer without taking other people's assets?

By applying themselves and earning what they accumulate. If you are smart
and work hard you win. If you are dumb and sit at home waiting for the
welfare check you lose.

[Doug Carter]

Judah wrote:
> How, exactly, do the rich get richer without taking other people's assets?

You have to be kidding. Have you read any economics aside
from Marx?

[Tarver Engineering]

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...

> So now you have 'conservatives' running around talking about property
rights
> and states' rights

Republicans have always supported States' rights, as that is the basis of a
republic.

> (originally created to protect slavery)

Democrats wanted the 3/5 law and Republicans were not willing to go to war
over it and as long as libertarins could control the purse everyone was
willing to leave things be for a while.

> and protecting
> large corporations while espousing populist principles.

The libertarian wing (once Federalists) of the Republican Party insistthey
address the issues of fiscal responsibility and a small central government,
but libertarians are out of favor now due to their isolationist tendancies.

> And you have the
> 'liberals' running around trying to limit free speech and press, disarming
> the public, and supporting the worst thugs and despots imaginable in other
> countries in the name of 'diversity' and 'tolerance.'

Racism has always been the Democrats' product.

[Tarver Engineering]

"darwin smith" > wrote in message
hlink.net...
> Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

> >You are firmly pro-murder, for that is what abortion is at present.
> >
> I disagree, obviously, but as I say below I can understand your view.

Here are some 9nteresting comments from the founder of Planned Parenthood:

It [charity] encourages the healthier and more normal sections of the world
to shoulder the burden of unthinking and indiscriminate fecundity of others;
which brings with it, as I think the reader must agree, a dead weight of
human waste. Instead of decreasing and aiming to eliminate the stocks that
are most detrimental to the future of the race and the world, it tends to
render them to a menacing degree dominant [emphasis added].11
Margaret Sanger

"To give certain dysgenic groups in our population their choice of
segregation [concentration camps] or sterilization", advocated the founder
of Planned Parenthood, Margaret Sanger in April 1932 ("A Plan For Peace")

I thing even you can see how applied Darwinism is murder, Smith.

[Otis Winslow]

Go here:
http://www.libertarian.org/index2.html




"Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
...
>
> "C J Campbell" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > So now you have 'conservatives' running around talking about property
> rights
> > and states' rights
>
> Republicans have always supported States' rights, as that is the basis of
a
> republic.
>
> > (originally created to protect slavery)
>
> Democrats wanted the 3/5 law and Republicans were not willing to go to war
> over it and as long as libertarins could control the purse everyone was
> willing to leave things be for a while.
>
> > and protecting
> > large corporations while espousing populist principles.
>
> The libertarian wing (once Federalists) of the Republican Party insistthey
> address the issues of fiscal responsibility and a small central
government,
> but libertarians are out of favor now due to their isolationist
tendancies.
>
> > And you have the
> > 'liberals' running around trying to limit free speech and press,
disarming
> > the public, and supporting the worst thugs and despots imaginable in
other
> > countries in the name of 'diversity' and 'tolerance.'
>
> Racism has always been the Democrats' product.
>
>

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Judah" > wrote in message
...
>
> How, exactly, do the rich get richer without taking other
> people's assets?
>

By creating wealth.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Judah" > wrote in message
...
>
> What, exactly, then, do conservatives want?
>

Freedom.

[Tarver Engineering]

"Otis Winslow" > wrote in message
.. .
> Go here:
> http://www.libertarian.org/index2.html

The Hoover Institute is the leading libertarian think tank in America and it
is very conservative. In fact, outside the Hoover Institute libertarians
have had little power in the US since FDR's Presidency began. Libertarians
inside the Republican Party were responsible for the "balanced budget" we
had a few years ago.

> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "C J Campbell" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> > > So now you have 'conservatives' running around talking about property
rights
> > > and states' rights
> >
> > Republicans have always supported States' rights, as that is the basis
of a
> > republic.
> >
> > > (originally created to protect slavery)
> >
> > Democrats wanted the 3/5 law and Republicans were not willing to go to
war
> > over it and as long as libertarins could control the purse everyone was
> > willing to leave things be for a while.
> >
> > > and protecting
> > > large corporations while espousing populist principles.
> >
> > The libertarian wing (once Federalists) of the Republican Party
insistthey
> > address the issues of fiscal responsibility and a small central
government,
> > but libertarians are out of favor now due to their isolationist
tendancies.
> >
> > > And you have the
> > > 'liberals' running around trying to limit free speech and press,
disarming
> > > the public, and supporting the worst thugs and despots imaginable in
other
> > > countries in the name of 'diversity' and 'tolerance.'
> >
> > Racism has always been the Democrats' product.
> >
> >
>
>

[Judah]

"Dave Stadt" > wrote in
:

>
> "Judah" > wrote in message
> ...
>> How, exactly, do the rich get richer without taking other people's
>> assets?
>
> By applying themselves and earning what they accumulate. If you are
> smart and work hard you win. If you are dumb and sit at home waiting
> for the welfare check you lose.


Ahhh... So that's why my brilliant seventh grade science teacher is so
wealthy, and Mike Tyson, who can barely speak english, is so broke!

[Dave Stadt]

"Judah" > wrote in message
...
> "Dave Stadt" > wrote in
> :
>
> >
> > "Judah" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >> How, exactly, do the rich get richer without taking other people's
> >> assets?
> >
> > By applying themselves and earning what they accumulate. If you are
> > smart and work hard you win. If you are dumb and sit at home waiting
> > for the welfare check you lose.
>
>
> Ahhh... So that's why my brilliant seventh grade science teacher is so
> wealthy, and Mike Tyson, who can barely speak english, is so broke!

In fact Mike Tyson is broke. His current net worth is a couple of thousand
dollars. Tyson didn't sit home waiting for a government check although he
might well end up in that situation. If in fact the science teacher is
brilliant the opportunity to increase earnings is readily available.

[Judah]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in
link.net:

>
> "Judah" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> How, exactly, do the rich get richer without taking other
>> people's assets?
>>
>
> By creating wealth.
>
>

Ex Nihilo?

[Judah]

Exactly why he is such a enigmatic example.


"Dave Stadt" > wrote in
:

>
> "Judah" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Dave Stadt" > wrote in
>> :
>>
>> >
>> > "Judah" > wrote in message
>> > ...
>> >> How, exactly, do the rich get richer without taking other people's
>> >> assets?
>> >
>> > By applying themselves and earning what they accumulate. If you are
>> > smart and work hard you win. If you are dumb and sit at home
>> > waiting for the welfare check you lose.
>>
>>
>> Ahhh... So that's why my brilliant seventh grade science teacher is so
>> wealthy, and Mike Tyson, who can barely speak english, is so broke!
>
> In fact Mike Tyson is broke. His current net worth is a couple of
> thousand dollars. Tyson didn't sit home waiting for a government check
> although he might well end up in that situation. If in fact the
> science teacher is brilliant the opportunity to increase earnings is
> readily available.
>
>
>

[Judah]

Freedom for who? And from what?

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in
hlink.net:

>
> "Judah" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> What, exactly, then, do conservatives want?
>>
>
> Freedom.
>
>

[Chicken Bone]

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
> >
> > Jefferson godless?
>
> Apparently deists are thought to be godless.

By whom?

[S Green]

"Dave Stadt" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> "Judah" > wrote in message
> ...
> > "Dave Stadt" > wrote in
> > :
> >
> > >
> > > "Judah" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > >> How, exactly, do the rich get richer without taking other people's
> > >> assets?
> > >
> > > By applying themselves and earning what they accumulate. If you are
> > > smart and work hard you win. If you are dumb and sit at home waiting
> > > for the welfare check you lose.
> >
> >
> > Ahhh... So that's why my brilliant seventh grade science teacher is so
> > wealthy, and Mike Tyson, who can barely speak english, is so broke!
>
> In fact Mike Tyson is broke. His current net worth is a couple of
thousand
> dollars. Tyson didn't sit home waiting for a government check although he
> might well end up in that situation. If in fact the science teacher is
> brilliant the opportunity to increase earnings is readily available.

But not as a science teacher.

Do we want good science teachers teaching our kids or is it OK to low
ambition morons doing it instead?

[S Green]

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> darwin smith wrote:
> > Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
>
> >> Anti-abortion IS pro-life.
> >>
> > Even when there is no exception to save the life of the mother?
>
> Many conservatives have agreed to this exception. However, it isn't all
> that clear as very few cases are such that the mother's life is
> guaranteed to be at risk. The baby's life IS guaranteed to be at risk
> in an abortion. So even with this exception, you are still guaranteeing
> a death to save the possibility of a death. I'm still not sure that is
> a good moral position to aspire to, but at least it is better than most
> abortions which are simply murder for the sake of convenience. That
> isn't morally acceptable.
>
Execution in the name of revenge is not morally acceptable either.
Deliberately killing a person is murder and is a moral crime.

[S Green]

"Doug Carter" > wrote in message
...
> Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> > "Peter Gottlieb" > wrote in message
> > et...
> >
> >>And the "conservatives" are different, how?
>
> Conservatives object to excessive government spending,
> especially when it is used to force social engineering.
> Brian Riedl at the Heritage Foundation notes (quoted in part):
>
and the money being spent in Iraq is NOT social engineering then?

[[email protected]]

Matt Whiting wrote:

>
> I was following the comment that was in an earlier message in this
> thread, that I think you wrote, that said "The average G/A guy who flys
> a Cessna 182 100 hours a year doesn't begin to pay for the system."
>

I believe I said that. Let me change that to: the average G/A guy who flys a small IFR-equipped
(with IFR GPS) a 100 hours a year and often utilizies GPS instrument approach procedures at small
airports (of which there are hundreds now, if not thousands) doesn't begin to pay for the system.

[[email protected]]

Bob Noel wrote:

> In article >, wrote:
>
> > >
> > > All of which would have been done whether or not those C-182's flew
> > > those approaches. iow - no extra costs were incurred because of
> > > those approaches.
> >
> > Well....that is true for the cost of the center building. It isn't
> > necessarily
> > true where an approach control serves what is primarily a general
> > aviation
> > airport. And, it certainly isn't true for instrument approach procedures
> > established for airports that have no commercial traffic (which is many,
> > many
> > more instrument approach procedures than those established for airports
> > with
> > mostly, or some, commercial operations.
> >
>
> How many? have you counted them?
>
> --
> Bob Noel

All you have to do is flip through the NACO books and it becomes quite
apparent. The facts are self-evident. If you want a precise count, I'll let
you do that.

The last I recall, in the now-five-year-old program for 500 GPS approaches a
year, some 70-80% of those were established (and are being established) for
airports that have no commercial operations except perhaps for a very
infrequent Part 135 arrival.

[[email protected]]

Judah wrote:

> Put it in perspective.
>
> At MOST, the 100-hour per year pilot uses 100 hours of ATC time per year.
>
> The Airline pilot, who flies back and forth across the country twice a
> day, uses 100 hours of ATC time in about a week.

Not possible. That would grossly violate the flight-time limitations in Part
121. In any case, the airline pilot is a surrogate for the airline company
and the hundreds of paying customer using those ATC services.

>
>
> If I remember correctly (as quoted by the AOPA) there are about 250,000
> 100-hour per year GA planes.
>
> There are equally as many 100-hour per week Airlines.

The airline fleet is probably somewhere around 4,000 aircraft with an average
daily ultilization of 12-14 hours per day.

>
>
> The only real way to fairly and equitably split the cost of the system is
> to charge for the time used. It is probably not really practical to do
> that for a variety of reasons. But gas consumption probably delivers a
> good measure of time a plane spends in the air, and as such using the
> system, it is probably a fairly good place to put the tax to cover that
> cost.
>
> You seem to be complaining that an approach controller at BDL whose
> salary is mostly being paid by the 350 Airline flights per day he
> sequences in should not also provide sequencing a few times a year to
> Skylark nearby if they would publish a GPS approach and paint some lines
> on the runway.
>
> Hmmmmm...
>
> And perhaps the police who are patrolling my neighborhood shouldn't help
> you if you get mugged and are from out of town?
>
> wrote in :
>
> >
> >
> > "Matthew S. Whiting" wrote:
> >
> >> > The average G/A guy who flys a Cessna 182 100 hours a year doesn't
> >> > begin to pay for the system.
> >> >
> >>
> >> But he doesn't need much of the system either. He needs a few grass
> >> runways, and a good map and compass! :-)
> >>
> >> Matt
> >
> > Well, although that may be true for you, there are lots of Cessna 182's
> > that make a lot of instrument approaches at airports with control
> > towers. Or, even instrument approaches at airports without control
> > towers; all supported by center equipment, controllers, FAA approach
> > designers, expensive flight inspections, etc., etc.
> >
> >

[[email protected]]

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

> > wrote in message ...
> >
> > Most of it comes from taxes on airline tickets.
> >
>
> And airlines generate most of the costs.
>
> >
> > The average G/A guy who flys a Cessna 182 100 hours a year
> > doesn't begin to pay for the system.
> >
>
> The average G/A who flies a Cessna 182 100 hours a year doesn't begin to
> burden the system.

Not since the advent of GPS approaches. Thousands have been issued for
small airports, and those cost just as much as a GPS approach for Green Bay
Interuniversal Skyport.

[Joe Young]

"SNIP"
> I am not only pro choice, I am pro-abortion, I believe there should be a
> licensing procedure to ensure prospective parents are up to the task,
> physically, emotionally and financially. Until they can prove that, they
> should be chemically sterilized.

Should we also perform a mecry killing on all of our seniors when they get
to the point the can no longer take care of themselves. Maybe we should
also put down newborns with any physical, mental or genetic abnormalidies.
Surely they would be more inconvenient at having an healthly, but unwanted
baby. We kill millions of the latter in this country each year...so given
your logic, why don't we just expand the practice a bit. Then we can
ultimately expand the practice a bit more to encompase stupidity...and your
ticket will be up.

It is all called murder you moron.

[Matt Whiting]

Judah wrote:
> How, exactly, do the rich get richer without taking other people's assets?

By making the entire pie larger.


Matt

[Matt Whiting]

Dave Stadt wrote:
> "Judah" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>"Dave Stadt" > wrote in
:
>>
>>
>>>"Judah" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>>>How, exactly, do the rich get richer without taking other people's
>>>>assets?
>>>
>>>By applying themselves and earning what they accumulate. If you are
>>>smart and work hard you win. If you are dumb and sit at home waiting
>>>for the welfare check you lose.
>>
>>
>>Ahhh... So that's why my brilliant seventh grade science teacher is so
>>wealthy, and Mike Tyson, who can barely speak english, is so broke!
>
>
> In fact Mike Tyson is broke. His current net worth is a couple of thousand
> dollars. Tyson didn't sit home waiting for a government check although he
> might well end up in that situation. If in fact the science teacher is
> brilliant the opportunity to increase earnings is readily available.
>
>
>

And not everyone is driven by wealth creation. A lot of teachers,
scientists, etc., really are driven by other motiviations. I know that
is hard for many to believe, but it is true.


Matt

[Matt Whiting]

S Green wrote:
> "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>darwin smith wrote:
>>
>>>Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
>>
>>>>Anti-abortion IS pro-life.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Even when there is no exception to save the life of the mother?
>>
>>Many conservatives have agreed to this exception. However, it isn't all
>>that clear as very few cases are such that the mother's life is
>>guaranteed to be at risk. The baby's life IS guaranteed to be at risk
>>in an abortion. So even with this exception, you are still guaranteeing
>>a death to save the possibility of a death. I'm still not sure that is
>>a good moral position to aspire to, but at least it is better than most
>>abortions which are simply murder for the sake of convenience. That
>>isn't morally acceptable.
>>
>
> Execution in the name of revenge is not morally acceptable either.

I agree, which is why only the government should have such authority,
not the individuals who were wronged. That latter would be revenge, the
former is not.


> Deliberately killing a person is murder and is a moral crime.

Sorry, but killing and murder aren't the same. Killing in defense of
one's own life is not murder and is moral.

Matt

[Matt Whiting]

wrote:
>
> Matt Whiting wrote:
>
>
>>I was following the comment that was in an earlier message in this
>>thread, that I think you wrote, that said "The average G/A guy who flys
>>a Cessna 182 100 hours a year doesn't begin to pay for the system."
>>
>
>
> I believe I said that. Let me change that to: the average G/A guy who flys a small IFR-equipped
> (with IFR GPS) a 100 hours a year and often utilizies GPS instrument approach procedures at small
> airports (of which there are hundreds now, if not thousands) doesn't begin to pay for the system.
>
>
>

That's a much different scenario. I question though if the "average G/A
guy" and the rest of the statement can really go in the same sentence.


Matt

[Judah]

Let's see here...

14 hours per day
x 7 days per week
=================
98 hours per week.

That's pretty damned close...



wrote in :

>
>
> Judah wrote:
>
>> Put it in perspective.
>>
>> At MOST, the 100-hour per year pilot uses 100 hours of ATC time per
>> year.
>>
>> The Airline pilot, who flies back and forth across the country twice a
>> day, uses 100 hours of ATC time in about a week.
>
> Not possible. That would grossly violate the flight-time limitations
> in Part 121. In any case, the airline pilot is a surrogate for the
> airline company and the hundreds of paying customer using those ATC
> services.
>
>>
>>
>> If I remember correctly (as quoted by the AOPA) there are about
>> 250,000 100-hour per year GA planes.
>>
>> There are equally as many 100-hour per week Airlines.
>
> The airline fleet is probably somewhere around 4,000 aircraft with an
> average daily ultilization of 12-14 hours per day.
>
>>
>>
>> The only real way to fairly and equitably split the cost of the system
>> is to charge for the time used. It is probably not really practical to
>> do that for a variety of reasons. But gas consumption probably
>> delivers a good measure of time a plane spends in the air, and as such
>> using the system, it is probably a fairly good place to put the tax to
>> cover that cost.
>>
>> You seem to be complaining that an approach controller at BDL whose
>> salary is mostly being paid by the 350 Airline flights per day he
>> sequences in should not also provide sequencing a few times a year to
>> Skylark nearby if they would publish a GPS approach and paint some
>> lines on the runway.
>>
>> Hmmmmm...
>>
>> And perhaps the police who are patrolling my neighborhood shouldn't
>> help you if you get mugged and are from out of town?
>>
>> wrote in :
>>
>> >
>> >
>> > "Matthew S. Whiting" wrote:
>> >
>> >> > The average G/A guy who flys a Cessna 182 100 hours a year
>> >> > doesn't begin to pay for the system.
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> But he doesn't need much of the system either. He needs a few
>> >> grass runways, and a good map and compass! :-)
>> >>
>> >> Matt
>> >
>> > Well, although that may be true for you, there are lots of Cessna
>> > 182's that make a lot of instrument approaches at airports with
>> > control towers. Or, even instrument approaches at airports without
>> > control towers; all supported by center equipment, controllers, FAA
>> > approach designers, expensive flight inspections, etc., etc.
>> >
>> >
>

[Doug Carter]

Judah wrote:
> "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in
> link.net:

>>>How, exactly, do the rich get richer without taking other
>>>people's assets?
>>
>>By creating wealth.
>>
> Ex Nihilo?

Perhaps you mean 'Creatio Ex Nihilo', create something out
of nothing.

If so, you claim that the value of labor = zero.

Marx would not approve.

[Otis Winslow]

I would hardly call Libertarians very conservative. While the free market
position could
lead one to think that ... the general approach of us being able to do our
own thing
as long as we don't interfere with others exercising that same freedom is a
long way
away from the ultra conservative approach. They want to control our every
action
and make our moral judgements for us. The Libertarians I know .. like me ..
believe
in maximum liberty and minimum government to the extent that it's practical.
The problem
with the Republicrats is one wants to control our bank account and one wants
to
control our bedroom. With Libertarians .. at this point .. having little
practical political
power we're forced to choose between the extreme right or the extreme left.

http://www.libertarian.org/policy.html



"Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Otis Winslow" > wrote in message
> .. .
> > Go here:
> > http://www.libertarian.org/index2.html
>
> The Hoover Institute is the leading libertarian think tank in America and
it
> is very conservative. In fact, outside the Hoover Institute libertarians
> have had little power in the US since FDR's Presidency began.
Libertarians
> inside the Republican Party were responsible for the "balanced budget" we
> had a few years ago.
>
> > "Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > "C J Campbell" > wrote in
message
> > > ...
> > >
> > > > So now you have 'conservatives' running around talking about
property
> rights
> > > > and states' rights
> > >
> > > Republicans have always supported States' rights, as that is the basis
> of a
> > > republic.
> > >
> > > > (originally created to protect slavery)
> > >
> > > Democrats wanted the 3/5 law and Republicans were not willing to go to
> war
> > > over it and as long as libertarins could control the purse everyone
was
> > > willing to leave things be for a while.
> > >
> > > > and protecting
> > > > large corporations while espousing populist principles.
> > >
> > > The libertarian wing (once Federalists) of the Republican Party
> insistthey
> > > address the issues of fiscal responsibility and a small central
> government,
> > > but libertarians are out of favor now due to their isolationist
> tendancies.
> > >
> > > > And you have the
> > > > 'liberals' running around trying to limit free speech and press,
> disarming
> > > > the public, and supporting the worst thugs and despots imaginable in
> other
> > > > countries in the name of 'diversity' and 'tolerance.'
> > >
> > > Racism has always been the Democrats' product.
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

[Doug Carter]

wrote:

> The last I recall, in the now-five-year-old program for 500 GPS approaches a
> year, some 70-80% of those were established (and are being established) for
> airports that have no commercial operations except perhaps for a very
> infrequent Part 135 arrival.

It does not follow that an airport without Part 121 and
infrequent Part 135 operations has no economic value.

[Dave Stadt]

"S Green" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Dave Stadt" > wrote in message
> . ..
> >
> > "Judah" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > "Dave Stadt" > wrote in
> > > :
> > >
> > > >
> > > > "Judah" > wrote in message
> > > > ...
> > > >> How, exactly, do the rich get richer without taking other people's
> > > >> assets?
> > > >
> > > > By applying themselves and earning what they accumulate. If you are
> > > > smart and work hard you win. If you are dumb and sit at home
waiting
> > > > for the welfare check you lose.
> > >
> > >
> > > Ahhh... So that's why my brilliant seventh grade science teacher is so
> > > wealthy, and Mike Tyson, who can barely speak english, is so broke!
> >
> > In fact Mike Tyson is broke. His current net worth is a couple of
> thousand
> > dollars. Tyson didn't sit home waiting for a government check although
he
> > might well end up in that situation. If in fact the science teacher is
> > brilliant the opportunity to increase earnings is readily available.
>
> But not as a science teacher.

There are teaching jobs available that pay extremely well. The opportunity
is available.

> Do we want good science teachers teaching our kids or is it OK to low
> ambition morons doing it instead?

I have no idea what you are talking about.

[Doug Carter]

S Green wrote:
> "Doug Carter" > wrote in message
> ...

>>Conservatives object to excessive government spending,
>>especially when it is used to force social engineering.

> and the money being spent in Iraq is NOT social engineering then?>

The Iraq war is part of a long belated response to world
wide terrorism.

Your inference that establishing conditions that give
peoples a chance to escape from dictatorships is 'social
engineering' is valid and I stand corrected.

I should have said that "conservatives object to excessive
government spending, especially when it is used to
increase dependence on welfare or inappropriately create
monopolies that displace free enterprise."

[C J Campbell]

"Chicken Bone" > wrote in message
news.com...
>
> "C J Campbell" > wrote in message
> > >
> > > Jefferson godless?
> >
> > Apparently deists are thought to be godless.
>
> By whom?

By those who, like Dan Luke, want to portray Jefferson as godless in order
to further their own political agenda of excluding religious views from the
political forum.

[[email protected]]

Matt Whiting wrote:

> wrote:
> >
> > Matt Whiting wrote:
> >
> >
> >>I was following the comment that was in an earlier message in this
> >>thread, that I think you wrote, that said "The average G/A guy who flys
> >>a Cessna 182 100 hours a year doesn't begin to pay for the system."
> >>
> >
> >
> > I believe I said that. Let me change that to: the average G/A guy who flys a small IFR-equipped
> > (with IFR GPS) a 100 hours a year and often utilizies GPS instrument approach procedures at small
> > airports (of which there are hundreds now, if not thousands) doesn't begin to pay for the system.
> >
> >
> >
>
> That's a much different scenario. I question though if the "average G/A
> guy" and the rest of the statement can really go in the same sentence.
>

Sure it can. The operative phrase is: "the average G/A guy who flys a small IFR-equippe> (with IFR
GPS) a 100 hours a year and often utilizies GPS instrument approach procedures at small airports..."

You reduced that to "average G/A guy..." which perhaps changes the meaning.

[[email protected]]

Judah wrote:

> Let's see here...
>
> 14 hours per day
> x 7 days per week
> =================
> 98 hours per week.
>
> That's pretty damned close...
>

For the airplane it is. But, you said, and I quote, "The Airline pilot, who
flies back and forth across the country twice a day, uses 100 hours of ATC
time in about a week".

[Tarver Engineering]

"Otis Winslow" > wrote in message
...
> I would hardly call Libertarians very conservative. While the free market
position could
> lead one to think that ... the general approach of us being able to do our
own thing
> as long as we don't interfere with others exercising that same freedom is
a long way
> away from the ultra conservative approach. They want to control our every
action
> and make our moral judgements for us.

Libertarians are as far to the right as it gets in America.

> The Libertarians I know .. like me .. believe
> in maximum liberty and minimum government to the extent that it's
practical. The problem
> with the Republicrats is one wants to control our bank account and one
wants to
> control our bedroom. With Libertarians .. at this point .. having little
practical political
> power we're forced to choose between the extreme right or the extreme
left.

Libertarians are the extreme right.

> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Otis Winslow" > wrote in message
> > .. .
> > > Go here:
> > > http://www.libertarian.org/index2.html
> >
> > The Hoover Institute is the leading libertarian think tank in America
and
> it
> > is very conservative. In fact, outside the Hoover Institute
libertarians
> > have had little power in the US since FDR's Presidency began.
> Libertarians
> > inside the Republican Party were responsible for the "balanced budget"
we
> > had a few years ago.
> >
> > > "Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > >
> > > > "C J Campbell" > wrote in
> message
> > > > ...
> > > >
> > > > > So now you have 'conservatives' running around talking about
> property
> > rights
> > > > > and states' rights
> > > >
> > > > Republicans have always supported States' rights, as that is the
basis
> > of a
> > > > republic.
> > > >
> > > > > (originally created to protect slavery)
> > > >
> > > > Democrats wanted the 3/5 law and Republicans were not willing to go
to
> > war
> > > > over it and as long as libertarins could control the purse everyone
> was
> > > > willing to leave things be for a while.
> > > >
> > > > > and protecting
> > > > > large corporations while espousing populist principles.
> > > >
> > > > The libertarian wing (once Federalists) of the Republican Party
> > insistthey
> > > > address the issues of fiscal responsibility and a small central
> > government,
> > > > but libertarians are out of favor now due to their isolationist
> > tendancies.
> > > >
> > > > > And you have the
> > > > > 'liberals' running around trying to limit free speech and press,
> > disarming
> > > > > the public, and supporting the worst thugs and despots imaginable
in
> > other
> > > > > countries in the name of 'diversity' and 'tolerance.'
> > > >
> > > > Racism has always been the Democrats' product.
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

[Dan Luke]

"C J Campbell" wrote:
>
> By those who, like Dan Luke, want to portray Jefferson as
> godless in order to further their own political agenda of
> excluding religious views from the political forum.

I certainly would never claim Jefferson was godless. Rather, my point
was that he would not pass the test for religious correctness of the
religious right, whose political agenda is to enlist government in
proselytizing their views.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

[Joe Young]

"Pete" > wrote in message
.com...
> In article >,
> "Joe Young" > wrote:
>
> > "SNIP"
> > > I am not only pro choice, I am pro-abortion, I believe there should be
a
> > > licensing procedure to ensure prospective parents are up to the task,
> > > physically, emotionally and financially. Until they can prove that,
they
> > > should be chemically sterilized.
> >
> > Should we also perform a mecry killing on all of our seniors when they
get
> > to the point the can no longer take care of themselves.
>
> I can't speak for other, but if *I* get to the point that I "need to be
> taken care of," you won't need to mercy-kill me, I'll do it myself.
>
> > Maybe we should also put down newborns with any physical, mental or
> > genetic abnormalidies. Surely they would be more inconvenient at
> > having an healthly, but unwanted baby. We kill millions of the
> > latter in this country each year...so given your logic, why don't we
> > just expand the practice a bit. Then we can ultimately expand the
> > practice a bit more to encompase stupidity...and your ticket will be
> > up.
>
> No it's not. IMO, a fetus is not a person until it's breathing on its
> own. I always am amused by men who oppose abortion, as if they know jack
> **** about being pregnant.
>
You may find this amusing but I do not... It has nothing to do with knowing
"jack **** about being pregnant", it has everything to do with understanding
biology, reproductive physiology...you know science...

Are you suggestion that since I have never been pregnant I could not
possibly have an opinion on this matter...does that also apply to those that
are for abortion?

> By the way, if you'd like to punch my ticket, you're welcome to take
> your best shot.

I don't think I suggested I would like to "punch your ticket". I simply
pointed out the obvious that if stupidity were a criteria for murder, you
might need to be careful.

[Tarver Engineering]

"Dan Luke" > wrote in message
...
> "C J Campbell" wrote:
> >
> > By those who, like Dan Luke, want to portray Jefferson as
> > godless in order to further their own political agenda of
> > excluding religious views from the political forum.
>
> I certainly would never claim Jefferson was godless. Rather, my point
> was that he would not pass the test for religious correctness of the
> religious right, whose political agenda is to enlist government in
> proselytizing their views.

With the left forcing the teaching of Darwin's "Origin of Species" in public
schools, while knowing full well that it is scientifically false, makes your
comments projection, Dan.

[Dan Luke]

"Tarver Engineering" wrote:
> With the left forcing the teaching of Darwin's "Origin of Species"
> in public schools, while knowing full well that it is scientifically
false,

Bull****.

This is exactly the kind of crap we are getting with the religious
right's political agenda. Folks like Tarver are typical recruits.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

[C J Campbell]

"Pete" > wrote in message
...
> In article . net>,
> "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:
>
> > "Pete" > wrote in message
> > .com...
> > >
> > > No, they want to tell you what you can and can't do in your
> > > bedroom, and with your own body. They want to tell you who
> > > you can marry, demand you go to church, but then you catch
> > > them in a motel room doin' what they said not to do.
> > >
> > > Conservatives are a bunch of lying liars.
> > >
> >
> > You've bought the propaganda.
> >
> > The basic difference between conservatives and liberals is their
position on
> > freedom. Conservatives are fer it, liberals are agin' it.
>
> Then why the fight against gay marriage? Why the fight against abortion?
> Why the fight against pr0n?

pr0n? What? Are you a spammer?

In case it has not occurred to you, most liberals also oppose gay marriage.
John Kerry, for example, has gone on record as opposing it. Many liberals
also oppose abortion, and there are a fair number of conservatives that
support it. These issues do not cut cleanly down conservative/liberal
ideological lines, despite efforts on both sides to portray them as such.
There is nothing inherently liberal or conservative about abortion, gay
marriage, or pornography.

It is just flat-out wrong to say that conservatives want to tell you what to
do in the bedroom. Most could not care less. It was not even an issue until
Clinton tried to distract attention from his perjury and corruption charges
by saying that conservatives were trying to regulate his behavior in the
bedroom. They were not; they were interested in his perjury and corruption.
Get over it. Clinton is gone, now.

Actually, it was an issue before Clinton. Before Clinton it was the
conservatives that were screaming that the liberals were trying to regulate
bedroom behavior. When you have extremely anti-family groups like Planned
Parenthood being allowed full access to the schools and children are being
told in public schools to not only ignore what their parents are teaching
them, but are expressly told not to tell their parents what is being taught
there, well, I don't think you have to be on the lunatic fringe to have some
objection to that. Like it or not, most parents feel they should have some
say in how their children are raised.

Most arguments that I have heard against gay marriage are basically
economic. All those legal protections and benefits afforded married couples
were instituted in order to provide a safe, stable environment for raising
children. Providing those benefits to gay couples is both costly and
extremely corrosive to the purpose of marriage. Those people who oppose gay
marriage believe it is not worth the social and economic cost. Many of those
who oppose gay marriage also feel that God does not approve of
homosexuality, but those who think that way tend to believe that is a matter
best left between the individuals involved and God. After all, if God
doesn't like it, there is nothing any of us can do about it. He is free to
send people to Hell or even destroy the whole country like he did Sodom.

But I, for one, do not want to pay for Social Security benefits for married
gay partners until I know where the money is coming from. I also want to
know what effect that allowing gay marriages would have on an already
fragile family structure. There are already too many children being raised
in single parent families. History has shown time and again that this
results in uncontrollable criminal activity. The prisons are full of
parentless children. I am not about to support anything that is likely to
make the situation even worse. The family infrastructure in this country is
broken. I strongly believe that allowing gay marriages will sweep away
whatever remnants remain of the concept of family. That is too high a price
to pay in the name of 'tolerance.'

[C J Campbell]

"Judah" > wrote in message
...
> How, exactly, do the rich get richer without taking other people's assets?
>

Here we have the crux of what passes for liberalism these days. Idiot.

The assumption is that if you possess something, it must have been stolen
from somebody else. It is astounding that liberals, who claim to be
intellectuals, cannot see the blatant fallacy behind this argument.

[Tarver Engineering]

"Dan Luke" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Tarver Engineering" wrote:
> > With the left forcing the teaching of Darwin's "Origin of Species"
> > in public schools, while knowing full well that it is scientifically
> false,
>
> Bull****.

Geological evidence demonstrates that if evolution occurs at all it does so
in a single generation, but that evidence is more likely replacement of one
species by another. Geological evidence also demonstrates that species come
into being rapidly following a global cataclysm. Jay Gould's evolution
reconciliation of Darwin's "Origin of Species" with hard physical evidence
rapidly approaches Creation.

Modern Cosmological theory suggests that the Universe is a vacuum
fluctuation, completely consistent with Creation. Although the contrivance
of an infinite number of parallel universes can be used to produce a secular
solution.

> This is exactly the kind of crap we are getting with the religious
> right's political agenda. Folks like Tarver are typical recruits.

A little science will drive you away from God, but a lot of science will
bring you right back.

Stop the teaching of religion as science in America's public schools.

[Judah]

Fair enough.

Please replace the words "Airline pilot" with "Airliner" in my original
post.



wrote in :

>
>
> Judah wrote:
>
>> Let's see here...
>>
>> 14 hours per day
>> x 7 days per week
>> =================
>> 98 hours per week.
>>
>> That's pretty damned close...
>>
>
> For the airplane it is. But, you said, and I quote, "The Airline
> pilot, who flies back and forth across the country twice a day, uses
> 100 hours of ATC time in about a week".
>
>
>

[Kevin]

S Green wrote:
> "Doug Carter" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
>>
>>>"Peter Gottlieb" > wrote in message
et...
>>>
>>>
>>>>And the "conservatives" are different, how?
>>
>>Conservatives object to excessive government spending,
>>especially when it is used to force social engineering.
>>Brian Riedl at the Heritage Foundation notes (quoted in part):
>>
>
> and the money being spent in Iraq is NOT social engineering then?
>
>
I am shocked to see we have liberal pilots. I thought the liberals were
to busy spending their money on enviro friendly cars, saving the whales,
protesting against the death penalty, pushing gun control, worshiping
Chappaquiddick Teddy, and supporting " Hanoi John".

[Dan Luke]

"Tarver Engineering" wrote:
>
> Stop the teaching of religion as science in America's public schools.

The big lie.

I'm not going to argue this with you here, Tarver, but I will be glad to
continue the discussion over in talk.origins. Repost there and I will
respond.

[Judah]

1) I don't seek approval from Marx. Heck! I don't even know the guy!

2) I made no claim whatsoever. My question was, how does one create
wealth out of nothing? Labor is not nothing, but I would contend that it
also does not create wealth. If it did, the manual laborers would be the
wealthy ones.

Most significant assets in the US exist in the form of Real Property
and/or Market Holdings. Since these are relatively fixed assets, the only
way to create wealth in either of these two endeavors is to redistribute
these assets in such a way as you are left with the most money at the
end.

Doug Carter > wrote in
:

> Judah wrote:
>> "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in
>> link.net:
>
>>>>How, exactly, do the rich get richer without taking other people's
>>>>assets?
>>>
>>>By creating wealth.
>>>
>> Ex Nihilo?
>
> Perhaps you mean 'Creatio Ex Nihilo', create something out
> of nothing.
>
> If so, you claim that the value of labor = zero.
>
> Marx would not approve.
>

[Tarver Engineering]

"Dan Luke" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Tarver Engineering" wrote:
> >
> > Stop the teaching of religion as science in America's public schools.
>
> The big lie.

Yes, Darwin's "Origin of Species" is a big lie.

> I'm not going to argue this with you here, Tarver, but I will be glad to
> continue the discussion over in talk.origins. Repost there and I will
> respond.

Talk.origins still believes "noone knows how gravity works", so you would
have to agree to a scietific venue; as opposed to me comming to your church.

[L Smith]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

>> Now, I would guess that to you the answer to your "question" is
>>perfectly obvious -
>>there is no fight against gay marriage. If this is so, then could you
>>please explain to me
>>why the Republican efforts in Massachussetts to ban same-sex unions, and
>>"Bush the
>>Lesser's" proposed constitutional amendment are not "fights against gay
>>marriage"/
>>
>>
>>
>
>Gay marriage is not the same as same-sex marriage.
>
This seems to be boiling down to an argument over semantics, where you
choose
to define terms in such a way as to give you the moral high ground.
Given that,
please define, as precisely as possible, how you define a "gay marriage"
and how
it differs from a same-sex marriage. It appears that your definition is
not in agreement
with how the general population interprets the term, and until we
understand your
definition any meaningful discussion on the topic is impossible.

>
>Those things are not abortion procedures. We were discussing abortion
>procedures.
>
If we were discussing abortion procedures, we would be talking about
things like D&C,
partial-birth abortions, and the like. The discussion was about
abortion, not procedures.
And any discussion of abortion that does not take into account birth
control, sex education,
and other means of providing true ___prevention____ is an imcomplete
discussion.

Rich Lemert

>
>
>
>

[Judah]

Actually, CJ, you should go back and follow the thread a little more
closely, and maybe read it without your blinders on.

The conservative view presented was that liberals want to take other
people's assets and redistribute them. I responded that conservatives
want to take other people's assets and keep them for themselves. The
response was that conservatives don't want other people's assets, and I
disagree with that completely.

You read my statement as a bitter one of resentment. Actually, I it was a
simple plain fact of the Free Market economy.

I made no mention of stealing. The Free Market in the US requires that
people redistribute assets in order to get rich. Most people don't get
rich based solely on their hourly rate. They get rich by buying low and
selling high - real estate, stocks, antiques on a road show, or whatever.

In the free market economy, someone wins, and someone loses.



"C J Campbell" > wrote in
:

>
> "Judah" > wrote in message
> ...
>> How, exactly, do the rich get richer without taking other people's
>> assets?
>>
>
> Here we have the crux of what passes for liberalism these days. Idiot.
>
> The assumption is that if you possess something, it must have been
> stolen from somebody else. It is astounding that liberals, who claim to
> be intellectuals, cannot see the blatant fallacy behind this argument.
>
>

[L Smith]

Matt Whiting wrote:

> darwin smith wrote:
>
>>
>> If you've waited until little Debbie is pregnant, you've lost your
>> chance to prevent an
>> abortion, period. All you can do now is stop it, but don't call it
>> prevention.
>
>
> Abstinence is strongly supported by all pro-life groups that I'm aware
> of and it is the only 100% means to prevent Debbie from getting pregnant.

Abstinence is 100% effective ONLY when one is 100% abstinent. While
this might be
an admirable goal to strive for, it is also completely unattainable. The
sex drive is very
powerful, and our modern culture doesn't make the task any easier. Given
this, I would
prefer to give everyone as much information and as many tools as possible.

Rich Lemert

>
>
>
> Matt
>

[Philip Sondericker]

in article , C J Campbell at
wrote on 4/18/04 8:11 AM:

>
> "Judah" > wrote in message
> ...
>> How, exactly, do the rich get richer without taking other people's assets?
>>
>
> Here we have the crux of what passes for liberalism these days. Idiot.
>
> The assumption is that if you possess something, it must have been stolen
> from somebody else.

He didn't say "stolen". He said "taken". I'm a businessman myself, and I
wouldn't have any money if other people didn't give me theirs.

>It is astounding that liberals, who claim to be
> intellectuals, cannot see the blatant fallacy behind this argument.

Here we have hysterical generalizations, hyperbole and simply not reading
something correctly.

[John Harlow]

> The prisons are full of parentless children. I am not about to
> support anything that is likely to make the situation even worse.

This makes no sense. Are you afraid gays will produce more "parentless
children" (as if there were such a thing) if they were permitted to marry?

You seem to have warped a connection to gays wishing to be legally married
and irresponsible heterosexuals. They have nothing to do with each other.

What exactly is it about gay people that scares you, CJ?

> The
> family infrastructure in this country is broken. I strongly believe
> that allowing gay marriages will sweep away whatever remnants remain
> of the concept of family.

Lol - what exactly do you predict will happen? This?:

"Ya know, babe, I was thinking about asking you to marry me, but since Bob
and Jim got married, I've decided I'll just impregnate you and split."

[Philip Sondericker]

in article v1xgc.10847$hw5.8404@attbi_s53, Kevin at wrote on
4/18/04 8:20 AM:

> S Green wrote:
>> "Doug Carter" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>> Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Peter Gottlieb" > wrote in message
>>>> et...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> And the "conservatives" are different, how?
>>>
>>> Conservatives object to excessive government spending,
>>> especially when it is used to force social engineering.
>>> Brian Riedl at the Heritage Foundation notes (quoted in part):
>>>
>>
>> and the money being spent in Iraq is NOT social engineering then?
>>
>>
> I am shocked to see we have liberal pilots. I thought the liberals were
> to busy spending their money on enviro friendly cars

A great idea. Do you have a problem with this, or would you prefer to
continue spending $2 a gallon to keep the Middle East rich?

>, saving the whales,

What on earth is wrong with that?

> protesting against the death penalty,

Good thing, too. Fortunately, a few governers (mostly Republican) took
notice, and they managed to save quite a few wrongly convicted people.

> pushing gun control, worshiping
> Chappaquiddick Teddy

I've never had much use for the Kennedys myself.

>, and supporting " Hanoi John".

Assuming you mean John Kerry, I don't think he ever went to Hanoi. He spent
his tour of duty on the MeKong Delta.

[L Smith]

Pete wrote:

>In article .net>,
> "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:
>
>
>
>>"Judah" > wrote in message
...
>>
>>
>>>What, exactly, then, do conservatives want?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>Freedom.
>>
>>
>
>You're an idiot. they want freedom to dictate to others, who don't share
>their views, what they'll do with their bodies, their relationships and
>their lives.
>
>People like you should be killed.
>
Somehow I _don't_ find it reassuring that a**holes exist on both sides
of the political
spectrum.

Rich Lemert

[Bob Noel]

In article >, wrote:

> > > airport. And, it certainly isn't true for instrument approach
> > > procedures
> > > established for airports that have no commercial traffic (which is
> > > many,
> > > many
> > > more instrument approach procedures than those established for
> > > airports
> > > with
> > > mostly, or some, commercial operations.
> >
> > How many? have you counted them?
>
> All you have to do is flip through the NACO books and it becomes quite
> apparent. The facts are self-evident. If you want a precise count, I'll
> let
> you do that.

yeah, it's quite evident that the airports that serve 135, 121,
and commercial traffic have more approaches than the airports that
don't. All you have to do is look. try it. How many approaches
at KBOS, KLGA, KLWM, KBED, KBUF, etc etc vs those airports that
used to have identifiers like 5B6?


>
> The last I recall, in the now-five-year-old program for 500 GPS
> approaches a
> year, some 70-80% of those were established (and are being established)
> for
> airports that have no commercial operations except perhaps for a very
> infrequent Part 135 arrival.

you might want to check those figures.

Also, you might be interested most of the GPS approaches were overlays
(meaning all the obstruction clearance work was already done). Very
few GPS approaches were defined for airports that didn't previously
have any approach, and nothing close to that 70-80% you claim.

--
Bob Noel

[Bob Noel]

In article >, wrote:

> I believe I said that. Let me change that to: the average G/A guy who
> flys a small IFR-equipped
> (with IFR GPS) a 100 hours a year and often utilizies GPS instrument
> approach procedures at small
> airports (of which there are hundreds now, if not thousands) doesn't
> begin to pay for the system.

how much does that guy cost?

--
Bob Noel

[L Smith]

Tarver Engineering wrote:

> With the left forcing the teaching of Darwin's "Origin of Species" in
> public
>
>schools, while knowing full well that it is scientifically false, makes your
>comments projection, Dan.
>
Please point out those parts of "Origin of Species" that are false.
Chances are
you'll either find out that scientists have already recognized the
error, or that
you have mis-understood the material. If you really have found an
unrecognized
error, science will thank you for allowing it to improve our
understanding of the world.
If you are in error, you'll thank us for helping you become a
better-informed citizen.

Rich Lemert

>
>
>
>

[Newps]

"Judah" > wrote in message
...
> Put it in perspective.
>
> At MOST, the 100-hour per year pilot uses 100 hours of ATC time per year.
>
> The Airline pilot, who flies back and forth across the country twice a
> day, uses 100 hours of ATC time in about a week.

Considering an airline pilot flies 80 hours a month, this is a pretty neat
trick.

[Tarver Engineering]

"L Smith" > wrote in message
link.net...
> Tarver Engineering wrote:
>
> > With the left forcing the teaching of Darwin's "Origin of Species" in
> > public
> >
> >schools, while knowing full well that it is scientifically false, makes
your
> >comments projection, Dan.
> >
> Please point out those parts of "Origin of Species" that are false.
> Chances are you'll either find out that scientists have already recognized
the
> error,

Yes, nearly all of science knows Darwin's "Origin of species" is completely
false. That is why I provided you with two other brances of science:
Physics demonstrating a theory with repeatable and demonstrable resilts
applied to Cosmology, Geology falses Darwin's "Origin of Species" with hard
physical evidence and then from within the church of Darwin itself, Jay
Gould replaces Darwin's work with a thirteen hundred page treatise trying to
reconcile the obvious undisputable falshoods within Darwin's "Origin of
species". All of the scientific community knows what is being taught in
school is a lie.

Stop teaching Darwin's religion as science in public schools.

[[email protected]]

Newps wrote:

>
>
> Considering an airline pilot flies 80 hours a month, this is a pretty neat
> trick.

If that much. ;-)

[[email protected]]

Bob Noel wrote:

> In article >, wrote:
>
> > I believe I said that. Let me change that to: the average G/A guy who
> > flys a small IFR-equipped
> > (with IFR GPS) a 100 hours a year and often utilizies GPS instrument
> > approach procedures at small
> > airports (of which there are hundreds now, if not thousands) doesn't
> > begin to pay for the system.
>
> how much does that guy cost?
>
> --
> Bob Noel

Say what?

[[email protected]]

Doug Carter wrote:

> wrote:
>
> > The last I recall, in the now-five-year-old program for 500 GPS approaches a
> > year, some 70-80% of those were established (and are being established) for
> > airports that have no commercial operations except perhaps for a very
> > infrequent Part 135 arrival.
>
> It does not follow that an airport without Part 121 and
> infrequent Part 135 operations has no economic value.

No doubt about it, and I did not imply that. Nonetheless, a 3,000' runway at
Podunk, Iowa, with two GPS approaches, represents a signifgicant federal subsidy
to the users of that airport. Those users who use it in conjunction with their
business or perhaps for an Angel flight, etc, indeed contriubute to the economy.
The guy who uses it to fly for $100 hamburgers (or, are they $200 hamburgers these
days?) is getting subsidized without his flight contributing very much to the
economy. I'm not suggesting it's right or wrong. I certainly have used the
system like that a lot over the years.

[[email protected]]

Bob Noel wrote:

Also, you might be interested most of the GPS approaches were overlays

> (meaning all the obstruction clearance work was already done). Very
> few GPS approaches were defined for airports that didn't previously
> have any approach, and nothing close to that 70-80% you claim.
>
> --
> Bob Noel

Baloney. At this stage of the program many, many airports that did not
previously have an IAP now have at least one RNAV (GPS) IAP. And, there are
many more that had perhaps one ground-based IAP and now have at least one
additional RNAV (GPS) IAP.

As to the BOS, LAX, JFKs, etc, how many IAPs do those airports represent? Last
time I checked there were over 10,000 IAPs in the U.S. No doubt those major
Part 139 airports take a huge amount of resources; then again the airline
passenger pays through the nose to support those facilities.

[Doug Carter]

Judah wrote:
> Labor is not nothing, but I would contend that it also does not create wealth.
> If it did, the manual laborers would be the wealthy ones.

Labor is not limited to *manual* labor. Try thinking of
labor as action by people. These actions includes
invention and organization as well as digging ditches.

Invention is what increases productivity and efficiency.
Without these increases we would still be dragging deer we
killed with rocks back to the cave by hand, digging
ditches with a stick and waiting for the invention of fire.

> ...the only way to create wealth in either of these two endeavors is to redistribute
> these assets...

Increases in productivity and efficiency are what increase
wealth. If this were not true then we would have five
billion people trying to live in the same cave eating the
same deer.

Redistribution has nothing, by definition, with the
creation anything. No food, no shelter, nothing is made
by redistribution. It should only be used to provide for
those who are actually unable to provide for themselves.
It is a form of charity, not production.

[Doug Carter]

Judah wrote:
> I made no mention of stealing. The Free Market in the US requires that
> people redistribute assets in order to get rich. Most people don't get
> rich based solely on their hourly rate. They get rich by buying low and
> selling high - real estate, stocks, antiques on a road show, or whatever.
>
> In the free market economy, someone wins, and someone loses.

You seem to be mired in the assumption that there is some
magical collection of assets that can only be
redistributed. This is patently false; it ignores the
reality that new and valuable assets are driven principaly
by invovation.

Take a recent very simple example: the asset value of the
computer industry world wide today is hundreds of billions
of dollars. These assets simply *did not exist* before
the invention of the computer, neither did the millions of
jobs in this sector.

Market speculation is one way to get rich, however even
here you may get confused. The speculators are the ones
who get rich or poor, not the companies that the stocks
represent.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

> wrote in message ...
>
> I believe I said that. Let me change that to: the average G/A guy
> who flys a small IFR-equipped (with IFR GPS) a 100 hours a
> year and often utilizies GPS instrument approach procedures at
> small airports (of which there are hundreds now, if not thousands)
> doesn't begin to pay for the system.
>

The average G/A guy who flies a small IFR-equipped (with IFR GPS) airplane
100 hours a year and often utilizes GPS instrument approach procedures at
small airports doesn't begin to put a burden on the system.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

> wrote in message ...
>
> Not since the advent of GPS approaches. Thousands have been
> issued for small airports, and those cost just as much as a GPS
> approach for Green Bay Interuniversal Skyport.
>

Well, if you can confidently make that statement, you must know the cost to
create a GPS approach. What is that cost?

[Doug Carter]

wrote:

> The guy who uses it [the small airport] to fly for $100 hamburgers (or, are they $200 hamburgers these
> days?) is getting subsidized without his flight contributing very much to the
> economy.

You may be right; on the other hand that $100 (or $200)
got spent. An airplane was built and bought, it was
maintained somewhere (likely on another small airport),
gas was bought and so forth.

Cities more often than not conclude that airports are an
economic add to the community. That's why they fund them.
So does the FAA.

Having said that, governmental decisions are often suspect
and I would like to see a study that addresses the
economic benefit of small airplanes.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Otis Winslow" > wrote in message
...
>
> I would hardly call Libertarians very conservative. While the
> free market position could lead one to think that ... the general
> approach of us being able to do our own thing as long as we
> don't interfere with others exercising that same freedom is a
> long way away from the ultra conservative approach. They want
> to control our every action and make our moral judgements for
> us.
>

It is liberals that wish to control other people.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Judah" > wrote in message
...
>
> Actually, CJ, you should go back and follow the thread a little more
> closely, and maybe read it without your blinders on.
>
> The conservative view presented was that liberals want to take other
> people's assets and redistribute them. I responded that conservatives
> want to take other people's assets and keep them for themselves. The
> response was that conservatives don't want other people's assets, and I >
disagree with that completely.
>

Your disagreement does not make it a false statement.

[Bob Noel]

In article >, wrote:

> > > I believe I said that. Let me change that to: the average G/A guy who
> > > flys a small IFR-equipped
> > > (with IFR GPS) a 100 hours a year and often utilizies GPS instrument
> > > approach procedures at small
> > > airports (of which there are hundreds now, if not thousands) doesn't
> > > begin to pay for the system.
> >
> > how much does that guy cost?
>
> Say what?

How much does it cost "the system" for the "average G/A guy"?

Do you have any actual facts wrt to have much money would be saved
if the "average G/A guy" didn't use the system? I trust you have
facts, otherwise you wouldn't continually claim that the
"average G/A guy" doesn't begin to pay for the system.

--
Bob Noel

[Judah]

Hey come on, now. Cut me a break. You know what I meant!

I was just feeding a troll, anyway!


"Newps" > wrote in
:

>
> "Judah" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Put it in perspective.
>>
>> At MOST, the 100-hour per year pilot uses 100 hours of ATC time per
>> year.
>>
>> The Airline pilot, who flies back and forth across the country twice a
>> day, uses 100 hours of ATC time in about a week.
>
> Considering an airline pilot flies 80 hours a month, this is a pretty
> neat trick.
>
>

[Matt Whiting]

Doug Carter wrote:
> Judah wrote:
>
>> "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in
>> link.net:
>
>
>>>> How, exactly, do the rich get richer without taking other
>>>> people's assets?
>>>
>>>
>>> By creating wealth.
>>>
>> Ex Nihilo?
>
>
> Perhaps you mean 'Creatio Ex Nihilo', create something out of nothing.
>
> If so, you claim that the value of labor = zero.
>
> Marx would not approve.

What did Groucho know about economics anyway? :-)

Matt

[Matt Whiting]

L Smith wrote:
> Matt Whiting wrote:
>
>> darwin smith wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> If you've waited until little Debbie is pregnant, you've lost your
>>> chance to prevent an
>>> abortion, period. All you can do now is stop it, but don't call it
>>> prevention.
>>
>>
>>
>> Abstinence is strongly supported by all pro-life groups that I'm aware
>> of and it is the only 100% means to prevent Debbie from getting pregnant.
>
>
> Abstinence is 100% effective ONLY when one is 100% abstinent. While
> this might be
> an admirable goal to strive for, it is also completely unattainable. The
> sex drive is very
> powerful, and our modern culture doesn't make the task any easier. Given
> this, I would
> prefer to give everyone as much information and as many tools as possible.

True, that as a society we've completely lost self-control and, worse
yet, we've even lost admiration for self-control as a virtue.
Promiscuous sex is just one result of that. Drugs, crime, etc., are a
few others. There's an old saying among quality control people that
"you get what you accept." This applies to human behavior just as much
as it does manufacturing. People like Deming, Crosby, etc., just
refused to accept that defects had to be a part of manufacturing.
Companies that followed their recommendations (most of which were in
Japan, unfortunately for the USA), increased their product quality well
above what others thought was even attainable, let alone economic.
Holding our kids and ourselves to high standards will greatly decrease
many of the bad behaviors tha are so rampant today. However, the
liberals have driven society towards a "if it feels good do
it/situational ethics" point of view and, as I wrote earlier, "you get
what you accept." Since we now accept almost any form of vile speech or
behavior, that is what we increasing get.


Matt

[Matt Whiting]

John Harlow wrote:
>>The prisons are full of parentless children. I am not about to
>>support anything that is likely to make the situation even worse.
>
>
> This makes no sense. Are you afraid gays will produce more "parentless
> children" (as if there were such a thing) if they were permitted to marry?
>
> You seem to have warped a connection to gays wishing to be legally married
> and irresponsible heterosexuals. They have nothing to do with each other.
>
> What exactly is it about gay people that scares you, CJ?

Why would he be afraid of happy people? Oh, you meant homosexuals, why
didn't you say so?

Matt

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Judah" > wrote in message
...
>
> The Airline pilot, who flies back and forth across the country twice a
> day, uses 100 hours of ATC time in about a week.
>

Oh, I think you're a bit high there.


>
> If I remember correctly (as quoted by the AOPA) there are
> about 250,000 100-hour per year GA planes.
>

AOPA puts the general aviation fleet at about 205,000 aircraft, and the
average time per aircraft per year at 144 hours.


>
> There are equally as many 100-hour per week Airlines.
>

Oh, no, it's not even close to that. AOPA puts the airline share of the
215,000 strong civil US fleet at 4%, that would be about 8600 aircraft.


>
> The only real way to fairly and equitably split the cost of the system is
> to charge for the time used. It is probably not really practical to do
> that for a variety of reasons. But gas consumption probably delivers a
> good measure of time a plane spends in the air, and as such using the
> system, it is probably a fairly good place to put the tax to cover that
> cost.
>

What makes that fair? The system wasn't created to serve general aviation,
it was created to serve the airlines. If general aviation didn't exist the
system would still be needed to serve the airlines and it wouldn't be much
smaller than it is now.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Judah" > wrote in message
...
>
> Freedom for who?
>

For everyone.


>
> And from what?
>

The natural constraints on freedom are other people's freedom.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"S Green" > wrote in message
...
>
> Execution in the name of revenge is not morally acceptable either.
>

Agreed, and no reasonable person advocates that.


>
> Deliberately killing a person is murder and is a moral crime.
>

Not always. Killing another person in self-defense is not murder. Capital
punishment id not murder.

[L Smith]

Tarver Engineering wrote:

>"L Smith" > wrote in message
link.net...
>
>
>
>> Please point out those parts of "Origin of Species" that are false.
>>Chances are you'll either find out that scientists have already recognized
>>
>>
>the
>
>
>>error,
>>
>>
>
>Yes, nearly all of science knows Darwin's "Origin of species" is completely
>false. That is why I provided you with two other brances of science:
>Physics demonstrating a theory with repeatable and demonstrable resilts
>applied to Cosmology, Geology falses Darwin's "Origin of Species" with hard
>physical evidence and then from within the church of Darwin itself, Jay
>Gould replaces Darwin's work with a thirteen hundred page treatise trying to
>reconcile the obvious undisputable falshoods within Darwin's "Origin of
>species". All of the scientific community knows what is being taught in
>school is a lie.
>
>Stop teaching Darwin's religion as science in public schools.
>
So far, nothing in your response above even comes close to answering
my questions.
I asked you to point out where you believe Darwinian theory is in error.
You respond with
a bunch of hand-waving that claims "this group shows its false, and that
group shows its
false, and blah-blah-blah." Since I don't accept the "because they said
so" argument from
people who count (such as those in political office), why do you think
I'll accept that
argument from someone I don't know from Caesar?

If you're unwilling to tell us where you think Darwinian theory is
wrong, are you at least
willing to tell us what you think Darwinian theory says?

By the way, while repeatability is a significant component of a
scientific theory, its not
a necessary or even a sufficient component. Otherwise, there could be
_no_ theories
of the universe. The _necessary_ and _sufficient_ condition required in
order for a
hypothesis to become a scientific theory is that the hypothesis must
lead to predictions
that can be proven false. "The moon is made of green cheese", for
example, meets
this test. You can prove the theory wrong by going to the moon and
seeing what it's
made of.

Can your favorite creation "theory" predict the development of
anti-biotic resistant
bacteria?

Rich Lemert

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"L Smith" > wrote in message
link.net...
>
> This seems to be boiling down to an argument over semantics,
> where you choose to define terms in such a way as to give you
> the moral high ground. Given that, please define, as precisely as
> possible, how you define a "gay marriage" and how it differs from
> a same-sex marriage. It appears that your definition is not in
> agreement with how the general population interprets the term, and
> until we understand your definition any meaningful discussion on the
> topic is impossible.
>

Marriage is the union of a man and woman as husband and wife. When at least
one of the persons is gay you have a gay marriage. Same-sex marriage cannot
exist because marriage, by definition, requires persons of opposite sex.


>
> If we were discussing abortion procedures, we would be talking
> about things like D&C, partial-birth abortions, and the like. The
> discussion was about abortion, not procedures.
>

You obviously misunderstood the discussion.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

> wrote in message ...
>
> No doubt about it, and I did not imply that. Nonetheless, a
> 3,000' runway at Podunk, Iowa, with two GPS approaches,
> represents a signifgicant federal subsidy to the users of that
> airport.
>

I can't find Podunk in the Iowa airport directory. Not by city or airport
name. Where is this airport? What is the dollar amount of the federal
subsidy for a 3,000' runway and two GPS approaches at this airport?


>
> Those users who use it in conjunction with their business or perhaps
> for an Angel flight, etc, indeed contriubute to the economy.
>

Don't the users who fly solely for recreation also contribute to the
economy?


>
> The guy who uses it to fly for $100 hamburgers (or, are they $200
> hamburgers these days?) is getting subsidized without his flight
> contributing very much to the economy.
>

How is he getting subsidized?

[darwin smith]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

>"Otis Winslow" > wrote in message
...
>
>
>>I would hardly call Libertarians very conservative. While the
>>free market position could lead one to think that ... the general
>>approach of us being able to do our own thing as long as we
>>don't interfere with others exercising that same freedom is a
>>long way away from the ultra conservative approach. They want
>>to control our every action and make our moral judgements for
>>us.
>>
>>
>>
>
>It is liberals that wish to control other people.
>
The conservative viewpoint: "With very few exceptions, we don't give a
damn why
you're pregnant. The fact is that you are, and therefore if you do
anything other than
carry that child to term you are a baby-killer. We won't _force_ you to
do so, of
course, we'll just make your life (and that of everyone around you) hell
if you don't."

The liberal viewpoint: "We don't really care why you're pregnant,
that's not
important any more. The fact is that you are, and you may have to make a
very difficult choice. All we can do for you now is tell you what
choices are
available and what there probably consequences are. The choice, however, is
something only you can make."

Now, why do I have a problem believing that conservatives aren't
interested in
controlling others?

Rich Lemert

>
>
>
>

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"darwin smith" > wrote in message
link.net...
>
> The conservative viewpoint: "With very few exceptions, we don't
> give a damn why you're pregnant. The fact is that you are, and
> therefore if you do anything other than carry that child to term you
> are a baby-killer. We won't _force_ you to do so, of course, we'll
> just make your life (and that of everyone around you) hell if you
> don't."
>
> The liberal viewpoint: "We don't really care why you're pregnant,
> that's not important any more. The fact is that you are, and you
> may have to make a very difficult choice. All we can do for you
> now is tell you what choices are available and what there
> probably consequences are. The choice, however, is something
> only you can make."
>
> Now, why do I have a problem believing that conservatives aren't
> interested in controlling others?
>

It appears it's because you are a person of low intelligence. You have the
liberals telling her she has complete control over the baby, even to the
point of killing it, and the conservatives telling her she does not have
that control.

[L Smith]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

>"L Smith" > wrote in message
link.net...
>
>
>>This seems to be boiling down to an argument over semantics,
>>where you choose to define terms in such a way as to give you
>>the moral high ground. Given that, please define, as precisely as
>>possible, how you define a "gay marriage" and how it differs from
>>a same-sex marriage. It appears that your definition is not in
>>agreement with how the general population interprets the term, and
>>until we understand your definition any meaningful discussion on the
>>topic is impossible.
>>
>>
>>
>
>Marriage is the union of a man and woman as husband and wife. When at least
>one of the persons is gay you have a gay marriage. Same-sex marriage cannot
>exist because marriage, by definition, requires persons of opposite sex.
>
1) Extending this argument, there is therefore no need for Bush's
proposed constitutional
amendment, since by definition there can be no same-sex marriage.

2) This is indeed the traditional definition currently accepted in the
western world. It is
far from a universal definition, though. Until fairly recently Mormon's
believed firmly
in polygamy, and polygamy is still a common practice in much of the
world (the general
rule being that you had to be able to support the entire family if you
elected to have more
than one wife). And IIRC, polyandry is an acceptable approach in parts
of Tibet and
other areas where life is considered so hard, more than one "wage
earner" is required
to support a family.

3) Many traditions are good, but that doesn't mean they should be
unchangable. All
traditions should be examined periodically to see if they still make sense.

4) If we accept your definition, then the question we need to ask is
"what is your view
on same-sex civil unions?" This is, after all, what's usually being
referred to when most
people are talking about "gay marriage".

Rich Lemert

>
>

[Andrew Gideon]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

> The basic difference between conservatives and liberals is their position
> on
> freedom. Conservatives are fer it, liberals are agin' it.

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? 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?

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".

Perhaps your definition of "conservative" is correct in theory. But like
the old Soviet Union's ridiculous claim to "communism", the practical truth
of our current administration is far from that theory. Tariffs on Steel?
From a "conservative administration"? Not likely!

- Andrew

[Dan Luke]

"Tarver Engineering" wrote:
> Talk.origins still believes "noone knows how gravity works",

And you do? Time to pick up your Nobel Prize.

> so you would have to agree to a scietific venue; as opposed to me
> comming to your church.

Chicken.

[Tarver Engineering]

"Dan Luke" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Tarver Engineering" wrote:
> > Talk.origins still believes "noone knows how gravity works",
>
> And you do? Time to pick up your Nobel Prize.

Albert Einstein explains it in his book, "The Meaning of Relativity", but no
Nobel prize.

> > so you would have to agree to a scietific venue; as opposed to me
> > comming to your church.
>
> Chicken.

Cross post it to alt.politics.usa.republican and ping me. I neither read,
or post directly to religious newsgroups. most of your little troll friends
at talk.origins are smart enough to run when they see me posting. Ever
since my discussion with Andrew Hall showed up as half the WSJ editorial
page there are few takers.

[Tarver Engineering]

"L Smith" > wrote in message
link.net...

> I asked you to point out where you believe Darwinian theory is in error.

1) Darwin's "Origin of Species" is not a scientific theory, as it fails to
meet the terms of the scientific method.

2) Geological evidence proves to beyond a shadow of a doubt that the
processes laid out in Darwin's "Origin of Species" are false.

3) The State of Georgia teaching Creation straight from Genesis is closer to
a modern scientific theory than Darwin's "Origin of Species".

4) Darwin's notional hypotesis is false even by the admission of biologists.

[Dan Luke]

"Tarver Engineering" wrote:
> most of your little troll friends at talk.origins are smart
> enough to run when they see me posting.

Another lie.

Try posting there again. If what you just said is the truth, you should
get little or no response.

[Dan Luke]

"L Smith" wrote:
> So far, nothing in your response above even comes
> close to answering my questions.

You can now see why Tarver is afraid to post in talk.origns. His
witless evasions have been ripped apart there before, but he thinks he
can get away with them here.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

[Doug Carter]

Matt Whiting wrote:

>> If so, you claim that the value of labor = zero.
>>
>> Marx would not approve.
>
>
> What did Groucho know about economics anyway? :-)
>
> Matt
>
That's the $64,000 question!

[Tarver Engineering]

"Dan Luke" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Tarver Engineering" wrote:
> > most of your little troll friends at talk.origins are smart
> > enough to run when they see me posting.
>
> Another lie.

I have science on my side and no reason to lie.

> 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.

[Tarver Engineering]

"Dan Luke" > wrote in message
...
> "L Smith" wrote:
> > So far, nothing in your response above even comes
> > close to answering my questions.
>
> You can now see why Tarver is afraid to post in talk.origns. His
> witless evasions have been ripped apart there before, but he thinks he
> can get away with them here.

And horses are an example of "natural selection". :)

[Otis Winslow]

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
...
>
> Libertarians are as far to the right as it gets in America.
>

Kindly site some Libertarian positions that would indicate a far right
leaning. Live and let live is a far right position? Personal responsibility
is a far right position? A desire for a small government, minimal
interference in our lives and maximum liberty to live as we please
is a far right position? What am I missing here?

[Matt Whiting]

L Smith wrote:
> Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
>
>> "L Smith" > wrote in message
>> link.net...
>>
>>
>>> This seems to be boiling down to an argument over semantics,
>>> where you choose to define terms in such a way as to give you
>>> the moral high ground. Given that, please define, as precisely as
>>> possible, how you define a "gay marriage" and how it differs from
>>> a same-sex marriage. It appears that your definition is not in
>>> agreement with how the general population interprets the term, and
>>> until we understand your definition any meaningful discussion on the
>>> topic is impossible.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> Marriage is the union of a man and woman as husband and wife. When at
>> least
>> one of the persons is gay you have a gay marriage. Same-sex marriage
>> cannot
>> exist because marriage, by definition, requires persons of opposite sex.
>>
> 1) Extending this argument, there is therefore no need for Bush's
> proposed constitutional
> amendment, since by definition there can be no same-sex marriage.

If it weren't for liberal activist judges who try to make law rather
than interpret the law, the amendment would, in fact, be superfluous.
It is simply restating the obvious, but liberal judges are unable to
understand it any other way.

Matt

[Peter Gottlieb]

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
>
> If it weren't for liberal activist judges who try to make law rather
> than interpret the law, the amendment would, in fact, be superfluous.
> It is simply restating the obvious, but liberal judges are unable to
> understand it any other way.

Are "liberal activist judges" any worse than conservative activist judges?

Isn't case law created in courts rather than by legislation, and a part of
the balance of power of the government?

[David Brooks]

> wrote in message
...
>
> > Actually, it's another from Winston Churchill (who as I remember
> > changed political party himself, probably at age 30).
>
> Actually, it's probably not. This from the authoritative Churchill Centre
> website http://www.winstonchurchill.org/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageid=112:
>
> "If you're not a liberal when you're 25, you have no heart. If you're not
a
> conservative by the time you're 35, you have no brain." There is no record
> of anyone hearing Churchill say this. Paul Addison of Edinburgh University
> makes this comment: "Surely Churchill can't have used the words attributed
> to him. He'd been a Conservative at 15 and a Liberal at 35! And would he
> have talked so disrespectfully of [his wife] Clemmie, who is generally
> thought to have been a lifelong Liberal?"

And remember most people here are using the term Liberal in its modern
American meaning. It seems to have been coined on the spot by GHWB as an
intended insult against Dukakis and adopted by both sides as a shorthand
for, at best, "social democrat". If you want to use the term disparagingly
you also imply it includes fellow-travelers like socialists (again, not
using the contemporary European definition) and anarchists. It's very
confusing when we don't even agree on the lexicon.

The British inter-war Liberal party espoused elements of contemporary social
democracy, to be sure, without the overhead of being in thrall to the
unions. Today, they largely represent the rump of the British, umm, Social
Democratic party.

-- David Brooks

[Tarver Engineering]

"Otis Winslow" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > Libertarians are as far to the right as it gets in America.
> >
>
> Kindly site some Libertarian positions that would indicate a far right
> leaning.

Fiscal conservatism and a strong resistence to government redistribution are
two consrvative sentiments libertarians share.

> Live and let live is a far right position? Personal responsibility
> is a far right position?

You know the latter is extremism to the American left.

> A desire for a small government, minimal
> interference in our lives and maximum liberty to live as we please
> is a far right position?

Yes. Ted Kennedy called constructionist Judicial nominees "Neanderthals".
Even wanting our republic back is extremism these days.

> What am I missing here?

You are probably thinkin of left and right in European terms, where both
ends of the spectrum are socialist.

[David Brooks]

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Judah" > wrote in message
> ...
> > How, exactly, do the rich get richer without taking other people's
assets?
> >
>
> Here we have the crux of what passes for liberalism these days. Idiot.
>
> The assumption is that if you possess something, it must have been stolen
> from somebody else. It is astounding that liberals, who claim to be
> intellectuals, cannot see the blatant fallacy behind this argument.

Oh, please read the liberal economists. They understand perfectly well the
principles of investment and growth, and that any successful economy cannot
be zero-sum.

The differences arise partly from a moral impulse to greater equity, even at
the cost of diluting some of the potential upside, and partly from a belief
that we are wasting leverage by (a) under-investment in the currently
disadvantaged and (b) allowing corporations to take short-term advantage at
the cost of longer-term greater universal gain (example: stop the polluters
because no credible free-market mechanism will stop them in time).

We're not all as idiotic as some of the postings make us appear.

I'd rather fly than argue any day :-)

-- David Brooks

[David Brooks]

"Dave Stadt" > wrote in message
m...

> Didja ever notice how liberals are more than willing to take other peoples
> assets and redistribute them but are more than willing to keep their
assets
> to themselves.

What trash. I'll compare my asset redistribution against yours any day,
punk.

-- David Brooks

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Dan Luke" > wrote in message
...
> "C J Campbell" wrote:
> >
> > By those who, like Dan Luke, want to portray Jefferson as
> > godless in order to further their own political agenda of
> > excluding religious views from the political forum.
>
> I certainly would never claim Jefferson was godless. Rather, my point
> was that he would not pass the test for religious correctness of the
> religious right, whose political agenda is to enlist government in
> proselytizing their views.
> --
Quite...just as they take the phrase "separation of church and state" as
though it's something from contemporary times rather than from the pen of
James Madison, they guy who essentially WROTE the Constitution.

[David Brooks]

CJ wrote, and I believe this is his crux:
> I strongly believe that allowing gay marriages will sweep away
> whatever remnants remain of the concept of family. That is too high a
price
> to pay in the name of 'tolerance.'

which is a principled and fair objection, and one that worries me too.

But, on balance, I see this: I see some of my friends who have been
committed partners for over twenty years who *want* to marry *because* they
are committed partners. They're too old to adopt and raise a child, though.
If fornicating Bob and Louise look up and see old Rod and Terry from down
the street trotting happily down to the courthouse to be married, perhaps it
will give them pause for thought about the value of the institution.

It sounds forced and corny, but I do believe it has value. Impinging on this
argument are (a) your beliefs about gays (are they all promiscuous
in-your-face protestors? No!) and (b) how many gay marriages are going to
end badly - we don't know yet.

-- David Brooks

[Dave Stadt]

"Judah" > wrote in message
...
> Actually, CJ, you should go back and follow the thread a little more
> closely, and maybe read it without your blinders on.
>
> The conservative view presented was that liberals want to take other
> people's assets and redistribute them. I responded that conservatives
> want to take other people's assets and keep them for themselves. The
> response was that conservatives don't want other people's assets, and I
> disagree with that completely.
>
> You read my statement as a bitter one of resentment. Actually, I it was a
> simple plain fact of the Free Market economy.
>
> I made no mention of stealing. The Free Market in the US requires that
> people redistribute assets in order to get rich. Most people don't get
> rich based solely on their hourly rate. They get rich by buying low and
> selling high - real estate, stocks, antiques on a road show, or whatever.
>
> In the free market economy, someone wins, and someone loses.

You need to sue your economics teacher.

[Ray Andraka]

One thing I have not seen mentioned here is that the Northwest article
specifically mentioned the airport fees (taxes) that are tacked on to most
tickets. Those cover mainly the cost of maintaining and improving the
terminal building, parking, security etc, none of which is even accessible to
GA, much less used by it.

As another observation, I think the airlines have a much better deal charging
the per passenger fee rather than paying the same amount percentage-wise we do
on fuel taxes.

--
--Ray Andraka, P.E.
President, the Andraka Consulting Group, Inc.
401/884-7930 Fax 401/884-7950
email
http://www.andraka.com

"They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little
temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-Benjamin Franklin, 1759

[C J Campbell]

"Judah" > wrote in message
...
>
> I made no mention of stealing. The Free Market in the US requires that
> people redistribute assets in order to get rich. Most people don't get
> rich based solely on their hourly rate. They get rich by buying low and
> selling high - real estate, stocks, antiques on a road show, or whatever.
>
> In the free market economy, someone wins, and someone loses.

You really don't have a clue, do you, about economics?

[C J Campbell]

"David Brooks" > wrote in message
...
>
> "C J Campbell" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Judah" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > How, exactly, do the rich get richer without taking other people's
> assets?
> > >
> >
> > Here we have the crux of what passes for liberalism these days. Idiot.
> >
> > The assumption is that if you possess something, it must have been
stolen
> > from somebody else. It is astounding that liberals, who claim to be
> > intellectuals, cannot see the blatant fallacy behind this argument.
>
> Oh, please read the liberal economists. They understand perfectly well the
> principles of investment and growth, and that any successful economy
cannot
> be zero-sum.
>

Are there any left? Keynes (as he famously predicted) is dead. :-) To
paraphrase Milton Friedman, we are all monetarists now.

[C J Campbell]

"Dan Luke" > wrote in message
...
> "C J Campbell" wrote:
> >
> > By those who, like Dan Luke, want to portray Jefferson as
> > godless in order to further their own political agenda of
> > excluding religious views from the political forum.
>
> I certainly would never claim Jefferson was godless. Rather, my point
> was that he would not pass the test for religious correctness of the
> religious right, whose political agenda is to enlist government in
> proselytizing their views.
> --

I have little tolerance for the religious right, either, but I don't think
the religious right is representative of conservatism. They appear to be a
hostile group of xenophobic, racist reactionaries. Frankly, they are as much
of an embarrassment to conservatives as PETA and the ELF are to the
liberals. Extremist groups like those are hotbeds for terrorism and other
criminal activity.

[C J Campbell]

"Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Dan Luke" > wrote in message
> ...
> > "C J Campbell" wrote:
> > >
> > > By those who, like Dan Luke, want to portray Jefferson as
> > > godless in order to further their own political agenda of
> > > excluding religious views from the political forum.
> >
> > I certainly would never claim Jefferson was godless. Rather, my point
> > was that he would not pass the test for religious correctness of the
> > religious right, whose political agenda is to enlist government in
> > proselytizing their views.
> > --
> Quite...just as they take the phrase "separation of church and state" as
> though it's something from contemporary times rather than from the pen of
> James Madison, they guy who essentially WROTE the Constitution.

Yes, but they did not make it part of the Constitution, did they? Read the
Federalist papers. There was quite a bit of debate about it, and Madison
lost.

[Matt Whiting]

Peter Gottlieb wrote:
> "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>If it weren't for liberal activist judges who try to make law rather
>>than interpret the law, the amendment would, in fact, be superfluous.
>>It is simply restating the obvious, but liberal judges are unable to
>>understand it any other way.
>
>
> Are "liberal activist judges" any worse than conservative activist judges?

Probably not, there are just more of them as society as a whole
continues to decline and standards of morality and behavior are lowered.


> Isn't case law created in courts rather than by legislation, and a part of
> the balance of power of the government?

That wasn't the intent behind the design of our government. The
legislature creates legislation ... could be why they call it the
legislature. :-)

The courts are only to ensure that the legislature adheres to the
constitution, they are not to "create" new law through interpretation.
They are to affirm or deny a given law as being constitutional or not,
and that is it.


Matt

[Matt Whiting]

Tom Sixkiller wrote:
> "Dan Luke" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>"C J Campbell" wrote:
>>
>>>By those who, like Dan Luke, want to portray Jefferson as
>>>godless in order to further their own political agenda of
>>>excluding religious views from the political forum.
>>
>>I certainly would never claim Jefferson was godless. Rather, my point
>>was that he would not pass the test for religious correctness of the
>>religious right, whose political agenda is to enlist government in
>>proselytizing their views.
>>--
>
> Quite...just as they take the phrase "separation of church and state" as
> though it's something from contemporary times rather than from the pen of
> James Madison, they guy who essentially WROTE the Constitution.

If he wrote the Constitution, why didn't he include this phraseology?
Could it be that it was simply HIS opinion and not generally shared by
the group that in the end approved the wording of our Constitution?
Many contributed to the wording either through writing it with their own
hand or through the debates that edited the final wording. You better
go back and read some more history so that you learn not to take one
man's opinion as being representative of all.


Matt

[Dan Luke]

"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.

[Otis Winslow]

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Fiscal conservatism and a strong resistence to government redistribution
are
> two consrvative sentiments libertarians share.

Absolutely. And that's a bad thing?
>

> You are probably thinkin of left and right in European terms, where both
> ends of the spectrum are socialist.
>

Well .. considering both ends of the spectrum wish to grow govt at an
astronomical rate .. you could be right. But I generally think in terms of
the left wishing to control my pocket book and the right wishing to control
my morals, violate my privacy, and control what goes on in my bedroom.

[darwin smith]

Tarver Engineering wrote:

>"L Smith" > wrote in message
link.net...
>
>
>
>>I asked you to point out where you believe Darwinian theory is in error.
>>
>>
>
>1) Darwin's "Origin of Species" is not a scientific theory, as it fails to
>meet the terms of the scientific method.
>
>2) Geological evidence proves to beyond a shadow of a doubt that the
>processes laid out in Darwin's "Origin of Species" are false.
>
>3) The State of Georgia teaching Creation straight from Genesis is closer to
>a modern scientific theory than Darwin's "Origin of Species".
>
>4) Darwin's notional hypotesis is false even by the admission of biologists.
>
>
>
And your evidence for these statements, all of which are opinion
rather than fact.

1) Darwin's development of his theory is one of the clearest
applications of the scientific
method that I know of. The revisions that have come since then are
further examples
of science at its best.

2) Geological evidence was used in the development of the theory, and so
far nothing
from geology has been found that clearly contradicts the theory.

3) I'm afraid that Georgia is not a well-known and widely respected
scientific expert.

4) Considering that evolution is a fundamental part of biology, I find
your last statement
somewhat surprising. I've known of several biologists who believed that
there were
still questions that evolutionary theory had not yet answered, but that
is a far cry from
claiming the theory is wrong.

Rich Lemert

[Tarver Engineering]

"Otis Winslow" > wrote in message
.. .
>
> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> >
> > Fiscal conservatism and a strong resistence to government redistribution
are
> > two consrvative sentiments libertarians share.
>
> Absolutely. And that's a bad thing?

Not to me, but those policies are incompatable with socialism.

[Tarver Engineering]

"darwin smith" > wrote in message
k.net...
> Tarver Engineering wrote:
>
> >"L Smith" > wrote in message
> link.net...
> >
> >
> >
> >>I asked you to point out where you believe Darwinian theory is in error.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >1) Darwin's "Origin of Species" is not a scientific theory, as it fails
to
> >meet the terms of the scientific method.
> >
> >2) Geological evidence proves to beyond a shadow of a doubt that the
> >processes laid out in Darwin's "Origin of Species" are false.
> >
> >3) The State of Georgia teaching Creation straight from Genesis is closer
to
> >a modern scientific theory than Darwin's "Origin of Species".
> >
> >4) Darwin's notional hypotesis is false even by the admission of
biologists.
> >
> >
> >
> And your evidence for these statements, all of which are opinion
> rather than fact.

The geological evidence has ended any question as to the validity of
Darwin's quaint little story. It is not opinion, but hard physical
evidence.

> 1) Darwin's development of his theory is one of the clearest
> applications of the scientific
> method that I know of.

Nope, biologists have to ignore the scientific method to even consider
Darwin's "Origin of Species" a theory at all, as Darwin's notional
hypothesis fails to meet the criterion of "experimantally demonstrable and
repeatable" required to be a theory.

This is my last reply here at rai, as this is way off topic and I don't
expect you will change your religous beliefs based on hard physical
evidence, or for any other reason.

[John Harlow]

>> What, exactly, then, do conservatives want?
>>
>
> Freedom.

"There ought to be limits to freedom"
-George W. Bush

[Gene Seibel]

I believe what I believe. You believe what you believe. Few of us will
change our minds, unless we have no convictions to start with.
--
Gene Seibel
Hangar 131 - http://pad39a.com/gene/plane.html
Because I fly, I envy no one.


"Chicken Bone" > wrote in message . com>...
> Flightinfo.com asked for pilots political orientation.
>
> Results:
>
> Democrat 22.97%
> Republican 57.24%
> Ind. 19.79%
>
> http://forums.flightinfo.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=21699

[C J Campbell]

"Gene Seibel" > wrote in message
om...
> I believe what I believe. You believe what you believe. Few of us will
> change our minds, unless we have no convictions to start with.
> --

I have never been convicted of anything. No one saw me do it. You can't
prove it. The sheep are lying.

[David Brooks]

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...

> I have never been convicted of anything. No one saw me do it. You can't
> prove it. The sheep are lying.

Does that mean it's going to rain?

[running with scissors]

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message >...
> "Dan Luke" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Tarver Engineering" wrote:
> > > most of your little troll friends at talk.origins are smart
> > > enough to run when they see me posting.
> >
> > Another lie.
>
> I have science on my side and no reason to lie.
>

the science where you claim a spoiler is a flap; and a spoiler is a
wing that creates negative lift?

or the science where you claim a flap "thickens" a wing?

or the science where you claim that "average" and "total" are
interchangeable terms?

[Michael 182]

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


"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.
>
>

[Tarver Engineering]

"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.

> 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.

I have provided Dan with enough information to do his own google search. It
doesn't really matter to me whether Dan has an interest in the scientific
truth of the matter, or not. Jay Gould spent a number of years trying to
reconcile the hard physical Geological evidence through a notional
hypothesis similar to Darwin's, except Gould's rapid evolution might have
happened; while Darwin's evolution into a new species slowly over a long
period of time is false.

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Gene Seibel" > wrote in message
om...
> I believe what I believe. You believe what you believe. Few of us will
> change our minds, unless we have no convictions to start with.

You don't change your mind when someone offers a better
explanation/argument?

[Peter Gottlieb]

"Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Gene Seibel" > wrote in message
> om...
> > I believe what I believe. You believe what you believe. Few of us will
> > change our minds, unless we have no convictions to start with.
>
> You don't change your mind when someone offers a better
> explanation/argument?
>

Sadly, most people do not.

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Peter Gottlieb" > wrote in message
. net...
> "Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Gene Seibel" > wrote in message
> > om...
> > > I believe what I believe. You believe what you believe. Few of us will
> > > change our minds, unless we have no convictions to start with.
> >
> > You don't change your mind when someone offers a better
> > explanation/argument?
> >
>
> Sadly, most people do not.
>
Quite...it is the ability to differentiate such things that they use to call
"Wisdom".

Tom
--
"Wisdom is the integration of Knowledge." -- Thought to be attributed to
Aristotle

[C J Campbell]

"Peter Gottlieb" > wrote in message
. net...
> "Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Gene Seibel" > wrote in message
> > om...
> > > I believe what I believe. You believe what you believe. Few of us will
> > > change our minds, unless we have no convictions to start with.
> >
> > You don't change your mind when someone offers a better
> > explanation/argument?
> >
>
> Sadly, most people do not.

Obviously true, since they still vote for Democrats. :-)

[Tom Sixkiller]

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Peter Gottlieb" > wrote in message
> . net...
> > "Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > "Gene Seibel" > wrote in message
> > > om...
> > > > I believe what I believe. You believe what you believe. Few of us
will
> > > > change our minds, unless we have no convictions to start with.
> > >
> > > You don't change your mind when someone offers a better
> > > explanation/argument?
> > >
> >
> > Sadly, most people do not.
>
> Obviously true, since they still vote for Democrats. :-)
>
Problem is the Republican's actions belie their arguments.

[Dan Luke]

"Michael 182" wrote:
> 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".

I know, I know. Hell, *everyone* knows Tarver is the dizziest loon on
usenet.

> Give it up.

I guess I'll have to; he's gun-shy now. I sure did want to see him get
shredded on talk.origins again, though; it's pure entertainment.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

[Andrew Gideon]

Tom Sixkiller wrote:

> Problem is the Republican's actions belie their arguments.

More than anything else, this is what I find so annoying. Color me
conservative, I'd like to vote that way. Unfortunately, nobody is giving
me that choice.

At this point, I'd have to vote Democrat because all they want is my money.
I'd rather give that then the rights the Republicans are trying to take.

Frustrating!

- Andrew

[Tarver Engineering]

"Dan Luke" > wrote in message
...

> I guess I'll have to; he's gun-shy now. I sure did want to see him get
> shredded on talk.origins again, though; it's pure entertainment.

I told you all you have to do is make a crosspost. I wouldn't post to a
Mormon newsgroup eiither. I enjoy mopping the floor with the uneducated
crew that hangs out at talk.origins. It upsets the biologists to see you
make such a fool of yourself though and I do not want to run off the
competent.

[Ash Wyllie]

David Brooks opined

>"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...

>> I have never been convicted of anything. No one saw me do it. You can't
>> prove it. The sheep are lying.

>Does that mean it's going to rain?

No, it's cows that lie down before it rains. Dunno what sheep do.


-ash
Cthulhu for President!
Why vote for a lesser evil?

[Judah]

No clue at all. But then, this is not an economics forum.

;)

"C J Campbell" > wrote in
:

>
> "Judah" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> I made no mention of stealing. The Free Market in the US requires that
>> people redistribute assets in order to get rich. Most people don't get
>> rich based solely on their hourly rate. They get rich by buying low
>> and selling high - real estate, stocks, antiques on a road show, or
>> whatever.
>>
>> In the free market economy, someone wins, and someone loses.
>
> You really don't have a clue, do you, about economics?
>
>

[darwin smith]

Tarver Engineering wrote:

>
>This is my last reply here at rai, as this is way off topic and I don't
>expect you will change your religous beliefs based on hard physical
>evidence, or for any other reason.
>
I agree that this discussion is way off topic, and that it's a good
time to end it. It's
just such a shame that you refuse to offer any "hard physical evidence"
for your
statements.

Oh, and by the way, I guess astronomy cannot be considered a science
either since it
so often fails the "experimentally demonstrable" requirement of a
theory. I do suggest
you check out a good discussion on the philosophy of science sometime,
though, to
find out what really is required to have a valid theory.

Rich Lemert

[Tarver Engineering]

"darwin smith" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> Tarver Engineering wrote:

> Oh, and by the way, I guess astronomy cannot be considered a science
either since it
> so often fails the "experimentally demonstrable" requirement of a theory.

Why would you post something so rediculess? Astromony adheres to the real
scientific method. Anyway, the discussion is moved to talk.origins. TO has
been pretty well destroyed since my discussion with Andrew Hall there would
up in the WSJ, so you will find many kooks and trolls there.

[Doug]

Success in governing requires more than one point of view. It takes
ALL of us thinking and acting upon our beliefs. The collective wisdom
is greater than any ONE person's wisdom, and even greater than the sum
of all the people's wisdom. That is what MAKES a democracy work.

[Jim Knoyle]

"Ash Wyllie" > wrote in message
...
> David Brooks opined
>
> >"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> >> I have never been convicted of anything. No one saw me do it. You can't
> >> prove it. The sheep are lying.
>
> >Does that mean it's going to rain?
>
> No, it's cows that lie down before it rains. Dunno what sheep do.
>
>
I hear they do baad things.

[[email protected]]

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

> > wrote in message ...
> >
> > No doubt about it, and I did not imply that. Nonetheless, a
> > 3,000' runway at Podunk, Iowa, with two GPS approaches,
> > represents a signifgicant federal subsidy to the users of that
> > airport.
> >
>
> I can't find Podunk in the Iowa airport directory. Not by city or airport
> name. Where is this airport? What is the dollar amount of the federal
> subsidy for a 3,000' runway and two GPS approaches at this airport?

Keep looking.

I was not suggesting the feds paid for the runway. The GPS approaches cost
about $60,000 each. If you want verfication for that write to the FAA.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

> wrote in message ...
>
> Keep looking.
>

I have concluded it does not exist.


>
> I was not suggesting the feds paid for the runway. The
> GPS approaches cost about $60,000 each. If you want
> verfication for that write to the FAA.
>

Is that how you obtained the figure? Why not just post the relevant parts
of your letter from the FAA?

[Dude]

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.

Everyone is being punished by the socialist system, even the poor who are
corrupted by it. I don't think the conservatives could ever come close to
being as invasive in my life as the libs. In any case, the conservatives
are in favor of me having a gun, so that tells me a little about how "in my
face" they intend to get.





"Pete" > wrote in message
...
> In article . net>,
> "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:
>
> > "Pete" > wrote in message
> > .com...
> > >
> > > No, they want to tell you what you can and can't do in your
> > > bedroom, and with your own body. They want to tell you who
> > > you can marry, demand you go to church, but then you catch
> > > them in a motel room doin' what they said not to do.
> > >
> > > Conservatives are a bunch of lying liars.
> > >
> >
> > You've bought the propaganda.
> >
> > The basic difference between conservatives and liberals is their
position on
> > freedom. Conservatives are fer it, liberals are agin' it.
>
> Then why the fight against gay marriage? Why the fight against abortion?
> Why the fight against pr0n?
>
> Conservatives are all for the rights of corporations to dump waste oil
> into fresh water supplies, for the rights of employers to force their
> workers to take horrrible physical risks and then not be compensated
> when they're injured.
>
> They're in favor of telling women what they can do with their bodies, in
> favor of snooping in private bedrooms, in favor of snooping on people's
> computers.
>
> The way things are going, the only good conservative, is a dead one, and
> in case you're wondering, I'm 53 years old. I see what happens when
> idiots like Chimpie are in power. Or evil criminals like Reagan and
> Nixon.
> --
> Hell yeah I'd love to make it
> But I suck at playing games
> I'd rather starve than fake it
> For a little taste of fame

[Dude]

Amen

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> Dave Stadt wrote:
> > "Judah" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> >>"Dave Stadt" > wrote in
> :
> >>
> >>
> >>>"Judah" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>>
> >>>>How, exactly, do the rich get richer without taking other people's
> >>>>assets?
> >>>
> >>>By applying themselves and earning what they accumulate. If you are
> >>>smart and work hard you win. If you are dumb and sit at home waiting
> >>>for the welfare check you lose.
> >>
> >>
> >>Ahhh... So that's why my brilliant seventh grade science teacher is so
> >>wealthy, and Mike Tyson, who can barely speak english, is so broke!
> >
> >
> > In fact Mike Tyson is broke. His current net worth is a couple of
thousand
> > dollars. Tyson didn't sit home waiting for a government check although
he
> > might well end up in that situation. If in fact the science teacher is
> > brilliant the opportunity to increase earnings is readily available.
> >
> >
> >
>
> And not everyone is driven by wealth creation. A lot of teachers,
> scientists, etc., really are driven by other motiviations. I know that
> is hard for many to believe, but it is true.
>
>
> Matt
>

[Dude]

"Philip Sondericker" > wrote in message
...
> in article , Dan Truesdell at
> wrote on 4/16/04 6:32 PM:
>
> > I don't feel guilty. I feel fortunate. And I look at the whole
> > picture. I've worked hard to get a degree, develop a career, and have a
> > comfortable lifestyle (that fortunately includes a plane). However, I
> > also recognize that, due to the fact I grew up in a poor family in a
> > poor town, you all paid for half my college education. (I paid the
> > other half.) Thank you! That "Robin hood Government" you speak of took
> > a small piece of your hard earned money and invested it in me. Guess
> > what? I paid more in taxes last year than I received in 4 years of
> > financial aid. Sounds like a good investment to me. What did you get
> > for your money? A very productive member of society who recognizes
> > that, thanks to a government that believes that an educated populous is
> > critical, I am able to visit a doctor when I need one. And get a
> > plumber when I need one. DO you think that the oft-touted "Free Market
> > Economy" will generate all of the necessary services we all need and
> > use? Not likely. Only the ones that are profitable. Think of that the
> > next time you visit a government educated doctor. Or the next time you
> > kid goes to a government funded school. Or the factory in your town is
> > kept from dumping toxic waste in your backyard because a government
> > funded EPA official keeps them from doing it. I realize that there is
> > certainly waste in government, but let's keep the whole picture in mind.
>
> Wow, a bit of calm, rational sense. Thank you.
>

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?

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. We do know that someone elses money went to pay
for that education.

Everyone notices how well off the lottery winner is, and doesn't notice all
the other players being a dollar poorer. That doesn't make the lottery a
free way to create wealth.

There is no free lunch!

[Dan Truesdell]

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.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"L Smith" > wrote in message
link.net...
>
> 1) Extending this argument, there is therefore no need for Bush's
> proposed constitutional
> amendment, since by definition there can be no same-sex marriage.
>

That, and the fact that marriage is not a federal issue per the US
Constitution.


>
> 2) This is indeed the traditional definition currently accepted in the
> western world. It is far from a universal definition, though. Until
> fairly recently Mormon's believed firmly in polygamy, and polygamy
> is still a common practice in much of the world (the general
> rule being that you had to be able to support the entire family if you
> elected to have more than one wife). And IIRC, polyandry is an
> acceptable approach in parts of Tibet and other areas where life is
> considered so hard, more than one "wage earner" is required
> to support a family.
>

I don't see how that definition necessarily excludes polygamy or polyandry.


>
> 3) Many traditions are good, but that doesn't mean they should be
> unchangable. All traditions should be examined periodically to see
> if they still make sense.
>

And proposed changes should be examined to see if they make sense. Same-sex
marriage does not make sense.


>
> 4) If we accept your definition,
>

It's not my definition.


>
> then the question we need to ask is "what is your view on
> same-sex civil unions?" This is, after all, what's usually being
> referred to when most people are talking about "gay marriage".
>

Same-sex civil unions do not make sense.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"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.


>
> 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.


>
> 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?

[Tarver Engineering]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
ink.net...

> > then the question we need to ask is "what is your view on
> > same-sex civil unions?" This is, after all, what's usually being
> > referred to when most people are talking about "gay marriage".
> >
>
> Same-sex civil unions do not make sense.

Same sex civil unions are redistribution away from heterosexual women to gay
men, just the same as gay marriage. In Canada when AIDS broke out the
medical system quit treating breast canacer to keep the fags alive. If
women went for more than 6 months without threatment the Canadian
Governement would buy them a bus ticket to Vermont.

[John Harlow]

> Same-sex civil unions do not make sense.

.... to you.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"John Harlow" > wrote in message
...
>
> ... to you.
>

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

[Gene Seibel]

"Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message >...
> "Gene Seibel" > wrote in message
> om...
> > I believe what I believe. You believe what you believe. Few of us will
> > change our minds, unless we have no convictions to start with.
>
> You don't change your mind when someone offers a better
> explanation/argument?

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.
--
Gene Seibel
Hangar 131 - http://pad39a.com/gene/plane.html
Because I fly, I envy no one.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Peter Gottlieb" > wrote in message
et...
>
> Are "liberal activist judges" any worse than conservative activist judges?
>

Since conservative philosophy precludes judicial activism there can be no
"conservative activist judges".

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Dan Truesdell" > wrote in message
...
> 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.

This assumes that government can provide them without VERY NEGATIVE
consequences.

> 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.

And this uses the logical fallacy of "false alternative".


> 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,

Love Canal was hardly an example of "free markets"; quite the opposite.

>horrible child labor situations,

And before child labor, these kids were running around the farm playing
"tag"?

> Company Stores, and Slavery.

Christ on a bike, where do you pull this BS from? Public School?

> 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.

You haven't a freaking clue what the hell you're talking about, and you
indicate a prime faling of government run schools, that being that they were
set up for INDOCTRINATION, not eduction.

> <snip>
>
> --
> Remove "2PLANES" to reply.
>

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Gene Seibel" > wrote in message
om...
> "Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message
>...
>
> > You don't change your mind when someone offers a better
> > explanation/argument?
>
> 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.

Ummm...I think they call that "dogmatic".

> 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.

Well, as you're probably aware, an idea is neither good nor bad because it's
old or new, but rather how well it comports with reality.

Often ideas we've heard for years are not really what we've come to believe
(our preconceived notions). For example, elsewhere in this thread Dan
Truesdale is making claims about free markets and history that are
completely bogus. I grew up "learning the same history", but found out well
out of school that what I was taught was a crock of cow poop.

One thing I notice about public schools is there is a complete lack of a
"free market of ideas" and of data as well.

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
nk.net...
>
> "Peter Gottlieb" > wrote in message
> et...
> >
> > Are "liberal activist judges" any worse than conservative activist
judges?
> >
>
> Since conservative philosophy precludes judicial activism there can be no
> "conservative activist judges".
>
Even those that try to cram the Fifteen (bonk..crash...) the Ten
Commandments down our throats, or that try to force teaching Creationism as
equal with Evolution?

[Tarver Engineering]

"Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
> nk.net...
> >
> > "Peter Gottlieb" > wrote in message
> > et...
> > >
> > > Are "liberal activist judges" any worse than conservative activist
judges?
> > >
> >
> > Since conservative philosophy precludes judicial activism there can be
no
> > "conservative activist judges".
> >
> Even those that try to cram the Fifteen (bonk..crash...) the Ten
> Commandments down our throats, or that try to force teaching Creationism
as
> equal with Evolution?

Both notional hypothesis are equal under the scientific method, but we can
know that evolution is false. How about we teach science in science class
and consign evolution to the ash heap of discredited science? After all, at
the beginning of each geological period a large number of species come into
existance, followed by an extiction of some species slowing as the time line
extends. The facts are the opposite of Darwin's process and that is not
only a science problem, but also a cognitive dissonance problem for the
athiest.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message
...
>
> Even those that try to cram the Fifteen (bonk..crash...) the Ten
> Commandments down our throats, or that try to force teaching Creationism
as
> equal with Evolution?
>

Since conservative philosophy precludes judicial activism there can be no
"conservative activist judges".

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > Even those that try to cram the Fifteen (bonk..crash...) the Ten
> > Commandments down our throats, or that try to force teaching Creationism
> as
> > equal with Evolution?
> >
>
> Since conservative philosophy precludes judicial activism there can be no
> "conservative activist judges".
>
Ah....yeah, okie dokie.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"John Harlow" > wrote in message
...
>
> "There ought to be limits to freedom"
> -George W. Bush
>

Yes, and the limits ought to be other people's freedom, nothing else.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Pete" > wrote in message
...
>
> 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)
>

The "you can't control my body" argument of the pro-abortion crowd never
made sense to me. As I see it, in a free society a person owns their own
body. It's their property. They can do whatever they like with it. Tattoo
it, pierce it, amputate a limb, alter it any way you want. It's yours. You
want to inject drugs into it? That's fine by me, just don't operate a motor
vehicle on a public road while you're under the influence. You want to rent
it out to a lonely man for a short time? Fine. You can do anything you
want to your own body, even destroy it. But you can't do that to the body
of another, including an unborn body. That's the problem with abortion, it
controls the body of another. The "you can't control my body" argument is
actually an argument AGAINST abortion.

[Matt Whiting]

Gene Seibel wrote:
> "Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message >...
>
>>"Gene Seibel" > wrote in message
om...
>>
>>>I believe what I believe. You believe what you believe. Few of us will
>>>change our minds, unless we have no convictions to start with.
>>
>>You don't change your mind when someone offers a better
>>explanation/argument?
>
>
> 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.


Matt

[Matt Whiting]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> "L Smith" > wrote in message
> link.net...
>
>> 1) Extending this argument, there is therefore no need for Bush's
>>proposed constitutional
>>amendment, since by definition there can be no same-sex marriage.
>>
>
>
> That, and the fact that marriage is not a federal issue per the US
> Constitution.

Neither was taxation... sigh.

Matt

[Peter Gottlieb]

"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.

[Tarver Engineering]

"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.

Susan B. Anthony advocated banning abortion based on men forcing their women
to abort. She was successful in nearly every US State. The issue of who's
money is it has much to do with abortion.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Peter Gottlieb" > wrote in message
. net...
>
> The problem with prohibiting abortion is that it controls the body of
> another.
>

Well, then, let's not prohibit abortion, let's just prohibit the ending of a
life not your own.


>
> 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.

[Peter Gottlieb]

"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?

[Gig Giacona]

"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>
>


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."

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Peter Gottlieb" > wrote in message
. net...
>
> Perhaps because we're a democracy rather than a dictatorship?
>

Explain.