Pilot's Political Orientation [Archive]

Musky

April 16th 04, 09:31 PM

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

April 16th 04, 10:09 PM

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

April 16th 04, 10:43 PM

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.
>

Musky

April 16th 04, 10:46 PM

I learned a long time ago not to open my mouth on usenet, you'd think I
would have remembered. In the interest of bandwidth I at least removed
..ifr and .owning from this conversation.

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.

If you read my message carefully you will not find that I "always feel
guilty", nor that I want to take anything away from anyone.

In true usenet style I suppose I should counter with "why do
Conservatives always spout off like arrogant pricks about how much they
have and how much they deserve it?" But that is impossible, since I
know and respect many conservative-minded people who DON'T feel or act
that way. I'm not complaining about what I have, but I'm also not
claiming that I have singular right to it.

Maybe I should put it this way, and then shut up and let the spouters
have their fling. Rant on, flame away, I'm going away after this.

When I voted against Reagan in 84, I ended up with a record-breaking
deficit, guaranteeing higher taxes in the future. There were also cuts
in my extended family's health care and social services, and a vast
outpouring of mentally ill homeless people onto the streets. Curiously,
that same extended family continue to vote Republican, though they are
hard pressed to explain why.

When I voted against the older Bush in 88, I ended up with even more
deficit spending, my friends going to war and dying over the rights to
cheap oil even though pump prices hit all-time highs, and drug and
weapons dealing in the absolute upper echelon of the government that I
pay for. Was anyone impeached? Hell, hands were not even slapped.

When I voted for Clinton, I ended up with eight years of slightly higher
taxes, a COMPLETE turnaround of deficit spending culminating in a record
*surplus*. It helped that business and real estate were both booming
at the time, but it also helped that he managed the boom wisely and
hired good people to give him advice. I saw my taxes climb 3%. I was
willing to spend that kind of money for what I, my family and friends,
and my country got for it.

Now that the younger Bush is in office, more of my friends are overseas,
and though fewer are dying, more are being forced to work in dangerous
conditions (like asbestos removal) without adequate safety equipment,
more are having their tours extended unreasonably. Taxes are lower for
those making six figures or better, but for those in lower brackets
conditions are worse than ever---taxes unchanged, services cut.

Bush is a bumbling idiot. Most if not all of my conservative friends
are voting for Kerry just to get the guy out of office. He has made
life in this country difficult unilaterally, and the ultra-partisan
congress has not helped.

> Robin Hood with my stuff and give it to those not inclined to get their
> own stuff.

For what it's worth, I worked hard for my things as well, from a poor
midwest farm family to a manager in a high-tech company. But I'm not
fooling myself with someone else's scare tactics. No one is trying to
give my stuff to someone else, or yours either.

Social services are not for weak idiots, they are for people with less.
It's called charity, and it is supposedly a Christian ideal.

More flame bait:

Has anyone else noticed that the majority of conservatives tend to be
Christian, yet the conservative ideal is completely ANTI-Christian?

> 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.

Government has no right to *take* anything. Don't forget that we have
hired them to run our large organization. They are not an evil entity
that we must appease, they are our EMPLOYEES, and it is our
responsibility to keep an eye on them.

The republican administrations over the past twenty years have taken far
more out of our pockets and away from our families---in form of our kids
going off to war to feed their special interests. If you are worried
about someone playing Robin Hood, look deeper than what you see on
TV---the current administration is stealing you BLIND. They are ****ing
down your back and telling you it is raining.

> 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.

HAHAHHAA.. okay, now I'm off my soapbox. It's tough to argue with that
kind of one-toothed logic.

Musky
pro stuff, pro defensive military, ANTI aggressive military and
ANTI right-wing conservative scare-tactic bull****

Bob Noel

April 16th 04, 11:11 PM

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

Bob Noel

April 16th 04, 11:22 PM

In article >, Musky
> wrote:

> I learned a long time ago not to open my mouth on usenet, you'd think I
> would have remembered. In the interest of bandwidth I at least removed
> .ifr and .owning from this conversation.

[snip]
> When I voted against Reagan in 84, I ended up with a record-breaking
> deficit, guaranteeing higher taxes in the future.

<soapbox>

one of these days people are going to learn which branch of
government is responsible for what. (Hint: Congress appropriates
money). If you didn't like the deficit budgets, then you should
be whining to the congress critters that appropriated (iirc) $1.79
for every additional $1 that came in.

</soapbox>

--
Bob Noel

Dave Stadt

April 16th 04, 11:23 PM

"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

April 16th 04, 11:27 PM

"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

April 17th 04, 12:09 AM

"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?

Michael 182

April 17th 04, 12:22 AM

Wow, a political post on RAP I actually agree with. I may have to print and
frame...

Michael

"Musky" > wrote in message
...
> I learned a long time ago not to open my mouth on usenet, you'd think I
> would have remembered. In the interest of bandwidth I at least removed
> .ifr and .owning from this conversation.
>
> 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.
>
> If you read my message carefully you will not find that I "always feel
> guilty", nor that I want to take anything away from anyone.
>
> In true usenet style I suppose I should counter with "why do
> Conservatives always spout off like arrogant pricks about how much they
> have and how much they deserve it?" But that is impossible, since I
> know and respect many conservative-minded people who DON'T feel or act
> that way. I'm not complaining about what I have, but I'm also not
> claiming that I have singular right to it.
>
> Maybe I should put it this way, and then shut up and let the spouters
> have their fling. Rant on, flame away, I'm going away after this.
>
> When I voted against Reagan in 84, I ended up with a record-breaking
> deficit, guaranteeing higher taxes in the future. There were also cuts
> in my extended family's health care and social services, and a vast
> outpouring of mentally ill homeless people onto the streets. Curiously,
> that same extended family continue to vote Republican, though they are
> hard pressed to explain why.
>
> When I voted against the older Bush in 88, I ended up with even more
> deficit spending, my friends going to war and dying over the rights to
> cheap oil even though pump prices hit all-time highs, and drug and
> weapons dealing in the absolute upper echelon of the government that I
> pay for. Was anyone impeached? Hell, hands were not even slapped.
>
> When I voted for Clinton, I ended up with eight years of slightly higher
> taxes, a COMPLETE turnaround of deficit spending culminating in a record
> *surplus*. It helped that business and real estate were both booming
> at the time, but it also helped that he managed the boom wisely and
> hired good people to give him advice. I saw my taxes climb 3%. I was
> willing to spend that kind of money for what I, my family and friends,
> and my country got for it.
>
> Now that the younger Bush is in office, more of my friends are overseas,
> and though fewer are dying, more are being forced to work in dangerous
> conditions (like asbestos removal) without adequate safety equipment,
> more are having their tours extended unreasonably. Taxes are lower for
> those making six figures or better, but for those in lower brackets
> conditions are worse than ever---taxes unchanged, services cut.
>
> Bush is a bumbling idiot. Most if not all of my conservative friends
> are voting for Kerry just to get the guy out of office. He has made
> life in this country difficult unilaterally, and the ultra-partisan
> congress has not helped.
>
> > Robin Hood with my stuff and give it to those not inclined to get their
> > own stuff.
>
> For what it's worth, I worked hard for my things as well, from a poor
> midwest farm family to a manager in a high-tech company. But I'm not
> fooling myself with someone else's scare tactics. No one is trying to
> give my stuff to someone else, or yours either.
>
> Social services are not for weak idiots, they are for people with less.
> It's called charity, and it is supposedly a Christian ideal.
>
> More flame bait:
>
> Has anyone else noticed that the majority of conservatives tend to be
> Christian, yet the conservative ideal is completely ANTI-Christian?
>
> > 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.
>
> Government has no right to *take* anything. Don't forget that we have
> hired them to run our large organization. They are not an evil entity
> that we must appease, they are our EMPLOYEES, and it is our
> responsibility to keep an eye on them.
>
> The republican administrations over the past twenty years have taken far
> more out of our pockets and away from our families---in form of our kids
> going off to war to feed their special interests. If you are worried
> about someone playing Robin Hood, look deeper than what you see on
> TV---the current administration is stealing you BLIND. They are ****ing
> down your back and telling you it is raining.
>
> > 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.
>
> HAHAHHAA.. okay, now I'm off my soapbox. It's tough to argue with that
> kind of one-toothed logic.
>
> Musky
> pro stuff, pro defensive military, ANTI aggressive military and
> ANTI right-wing conservative scare-tactic bull****
>

Joe Young

April 17th 04, 01:01 AM

Snip

> Bush is a bumbling idiot. Most if not all of my conservative friends
> are voting for Kerry just to get the guy out of office. He has made
> life in this country difficult unilaterally, and the ultra-partisan
> congress has not helped.

So tell me Mr. Musky, what is it YOU like so much about John Kerry? Tell me
about all the wonderful qualities that make him qualified to be the leader
of the free world................ Tell me about all of the hypocrisy he is
going to eventually have to explain away if his friends in the media
actually decide to do their jobs before the election. Tell me about his
purported running mate...the socialist former Whitehouse resident, now
carpetbagger Senator from New York. Oops...maybe you might not want to
criticize her too much...people that have been critical of her have a bad
habit of show up at room temperature. I truly hope you libs keep
underestimating the President, and keep calling him a "bumbling
idiot"...keep
looking down your pointy noses at the man...keep trotting out the
"smarter-than-thou" dandies from the freakshow you call the Democratic
Party. Your just making the re-election campaign easier.

Who are the ultra-partisans in congress...what do you think of the recent
remarks by the senior Senator (say hypocrite Kennedy) from Mass? How about
the recent comments/attack by the former Senator from Nebraska when
addressing Ms. Rice in front of the "Non-Partisan" 9-11 commission. How do
you like La La Pelosi's position on the military?...on gay marriage?

bty I call bullsh!t on the above statement. No true conservative would ever
vote for the most flamingly liberal candidate we have seen since Michael
Dukakis. Your "conservative friends" appear to have very little
conviction...or could it be they really are liberals masquerading as
conservatives?

> Musky
> pro stuff, pro defensive military, ANTI aggressive military

What the hell does that mean. You would like to have a nice shinny military
we can parade around on national holidays, but never use? How does a
"defensive" military protect this population from terrorists? Is that where
we just wait and see if those nasty old terrorist kill more of us...
maybe then we could have that great bastion of liberalism, the United
Nations, pass another resolution damning their actions. NO dummy...you take
the fight to them just like our president is doing...and just like many
Democrats talked about doing in the former administration but never had the
balls
to take decisive action. It is truly amazing that all of those big talkers
back
then are now giving aid and comfort to the enemy now by attempting to
undermine the credibility of Commander in Chief. Here is a news flash for
you....they declared war on us a long time ago...we are at war whether you
and your buddies like it or not. Your hero (the president that benefited
from Reagan's policies, economic and foreign, that allowed for the
prosperity of the 1990's) chose legal action rather than military
action...hence the attacks of 9-11.

One would think you pacifists would actually study history...your theories
and positions have never...ever worked. I would prefer not to be
conquered...unlike your brethren in places like France...I like being the
one passing out the bloody noses, not the one taking the beating.

G.R. Patterson III

April 17th 04, 01:50 AM

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

April 17th 04, 01:54 AM

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

April 17th 04, 02:32 AM

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

April 17th 04, 06:04 AM

"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

April 17th 04, 06:14 AM

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

April 17th 04, 12:34 PM

"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

April 17th 04, 12:42 PM

"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

April 17th 04, 01:03 PM

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]

April 17th 04, 02:34 PM

"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

April 17th 04, 02:40 PM

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

April 17th 04, 03:44 PM

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

April 17th 04, 03:47 PM

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

April 17th 04, 04:18 PM

in article , C J Campbell at
wrote on 4/16/04 8:04 AM:

>
> "BllFs6" > wrote in message
> ...
>>> Liberalism is Communism one drink at a time. - P.J. O'Rourke
>>>
>>
>> If only it was even as good as that :)
>>
>> Liberalism is more imprisoning than communism ever thought of being while
>> hiding under the fake facade of true freedom.....
>>
>> Its much better when poision is labeled poison, tastes like poison, and
>> everyone knows its poison.....rather than thinking and being told its free
>> jelly doughnuts instead....
>>
>
> People still buy cigarettes.... How can anyone possibly explain why vast
> numbers of people will continue to buy something that burns their mouths and
> lungs, makes the eyes sting, smells bad, makes food taste bad, is likely to
> burn themselves, their friends, and their possessions, and is deadly
> poisonous to boot, and even claim that they 'enjoy' it? Perhaps liberalism
> is to politics what tobacco is to recreation.
>
> Maybe JFK was right after all, when he claimed that he was a jelly doughnut.
> :-)

Okay, I was gonna stay out of this, but since people are comparing
liberalism to poison, cigarettes and other cancerous substances, it may be
time to remind everyone that our country was founded on some quite liberal
principles. Thomas Jefferson would likely be appalled to hear liberalism
likened to "poison".

C'mon folks, one of the reasons our country is so divided is rhetoric such
as this. Turn off Sean Hannity's rants for 10 seconds and get yourselves
together. Sheesh.

Philip Sondericker

April 17th 04, 04:24 PM

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

Theorem

April 17th 04, 04:24 PM

BllFs6 wrote:

>>Liberalism is Communism one drink at a time. - P.J. O'Rourke
>>
>
>
> If only it was even as good as that :)
>
> Liberalism is more imprisoning than communism ever thought of being while
> hiding under the fake facade of true freedom.....

Jesus was a liberal.

Philip Sondericker

April 17th 04, 04:25 PM

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

April 17th 04, 04:26 PM

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

April 17th 04, 05:27 PM

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]

April 17th 04, 05:52 PM

"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

April 17th 04, 06:02 PM

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

Teacherjh

April 17th 04, 06:03 PM

>>
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.
<<

And use all the runway, and land so hard that anything less than reinforced
concrete wouldn't do, and hold the centerline so poorly that a 150 foot wide
runway is barely sufficient.

Did you know that truckers pay an average of $15,000* in highway taxes? What
do you pay for your car tax? And bicycles ride free (except on highways).
Shouldn't bicycles pay $15,000 in taxes to be fair?

Jose
* From a bumper sticker. I made the number up because I can't remember the
real one, which is five figures in any case.
--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

[email protected]

April 17th 04, 06:47 PM

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

April 17th 04, 06:48 PM

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

darwin smith

April 17th 04, 06:57 PM

Teacherjh wrote:

>Did you know that truckers pay an average of $15,000* in highway taxes? What
>do you pay for your car tax? And bicycles ride free (except on highways).
>Shouldn't bicycles pay $15,000 in taxes to be fair?
>
>Jose
>* From a bumper sticker. I made the number up because I can't remember the
>real one, which is five figures in any case.
>
In order to answer your (rhetorical) question, we need a bit more
information - things like
how many miles does the average trucker put on the highways each year,
and how many
miles do you put on your car? how much of the money spent on highway
maintanance due
to damage from trucks, and how much is from damage by cars? You know,
answers to those
trivial little questions that neither side of the issue likes to talk
about because of the risk
that people might understand the issue.

Rich Lemert

[email protected]

April 17th 04, 07:04 PM

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

Teacherjh

April 17th 04, 07:35 PM

>>
In order to answer your (rhetorical) question, we need a bit more
information - things like how many miles does the average trucker put on the
highways each year,
and how many miles do you put on your car? how much of the money spent on
highway
maintanance due to damage from trucks, and how much is from damage by cars? You
know,
answers to those trivial little questions that neither side of the issue likes
to talk
about because of the risk that people might understand the issue.

<<

Exactly.

I'm not going to supply the information, because for one, I don't have the
studies in hand, and for two, that's not the point of my post. Rather, your
point is my point.

One trucker hopping a curb ensures the curb needs repair or replacement. It
would take lot of cars to do the same damage. I don't have studies to prove
this, but I think it's self-evident, and I've seen it happen.

A trucker that's not on the road (probably at highway speed) for a good portion
of the workweek is not going to make much money, and won't last long. I don't
know of any passenger cars that are on the road that much.

Trucks weigh more than cars. 18-wheelers weigh LOTS more than cars. I don't
have data to prove this either, but it's self evident to me. (yes, I know that
empty they weigh less than full).

My point is that the bumper sticker is supposed to bypass all those little
questions with the "oh my god, $18,000 - that's so unfair" reaction. The same
is true of the little airplanes in the system question.

Ultimately the question comes down to what is "fair" to user B, in a system
that has tto be constructed anyway for user A. That question is not amenable
to facts and figures, but is philosophical in nature, though once that question
is addressed, the facts and figures will figure into the final bill. It's
similar in nature to the "is flying safer" question.. safer per mile? per
minute? per passenger? per dollar spant? per area endangered? per diem?
persnickety?

Jose

--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

C J Campbell

April 17th 04, 07:37 PM

"Philip Sondericker" > wrote in message
...
> >>
> >
> > People still buy cigarettes.... How can anyone possibly explain why vast
> > numbers of people will continue to buy something that burns their mouths
and
> > lungs, makes the eyes sting, smells bad, makes food taste bad, is likely
to
> > burn themselves, their friends, and their possessions, and is deadly
> > poisonous to boot, and even claim that they 'enjoy' it? Perhaps
liberalism
> > is to politics what tobacco is to recreation.
> >
> > Maybe JFK was right after all, when he claimed that he was a jelly
doughnut.
> > :-)
>
> Okay, I was gonna stay out of this, but since people are comparing
> liberalism to poison, cigarettes and other cancerous substances, it may be
> time to remind everyone that our country was founded on some quite liberal
> principles. Thomas Jefferson would likely be appalled to hear liberalism
> likened to "poison".
>

Some people have no sense of humor. :-(

All right, you want to play it that way, Thomas Jefferson would likely be
appalled to hear what modern day liberalism espouses (socialism,
restrictions on freedom of speech on campus and in the press, restrictions
on the right to bear arms, restrictions on the right to practice your
religion, racial quotas, seizure of personal property for public use without
compensation, abandonment of morals, restrictions on campaign advertising
and financing, etc.). Thomas Jefferson liberals are what we call
conservatives nowadays.

Most liberals hate Jefferson and tar his reputation and his principles
whenever they can. Modern day liberals portray Jefferson as an oppressive
white slave owner and rapist, an establishment figure tied to big money and
corrupt politics. If Jefferson is mentioned in public schools at all, it is
to highlight the shameful and oppressive past of the white male dictators
that established the United States. That is all most modern grade school
kids know about Jefferson.

C J Campbell

April 17th 04, 07:38 PM

"Theorem" > wrote in message
...
> BllFs6 wrote:
>
> >>Liberalism is Communism one drink at a time. - P.J. O'Rourke
> >>
> >
> >
> > If only it was even as good as that :)
> >
> > Liberalism is more imprisoning than communism ever thought of being
while
> > hiding under the fake facade of true freedom.....
>
> Jesus was a liberal.

Then why do liberals hate him? Why don't liberals espouse the principals
that Jesus taught?

C J Campbell

April 17th 04, 07:43 PM

"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

April 17th 04, 07:45 PM

"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

April 17th 04, 07:46 PM

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]

April 17th 04, 07:48 PM

> 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]

April 17th 04, 08:08 PM

"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

April 17th 04, 08:34 PM

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

April 17th 04, 09:09 PM

"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

April 17th 04, 09:10 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?

Doug Carter

April 17th 04, 09:13 PM

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

April 17th 04, 09:18 PM

"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

April 17th 04, 09:21 PM

"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]

April 17th 04, 09:31 PM

"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?

Martin Hotze

April 17th 04, 09:31 PM

On Sat, 17 Apr 2004 11:24:56 -0400, Theorem wrote:

>> Liberalism is more imprisoning than communism ever thought of being while
>> hiding under the fake facade of true freedom.....
>
>Jesus was a liberal.

well ... but he is dead.

scnr

#m
--
A far-reaching proposal from the FBI (...) would require all broadband
Internet providers, including cable modem and DSL companies, to rewire
their networks to support easy wiretapping by police.
http://news.com.com/2100-1028-5172948.html

C J Campbell

April 17th 04, 09:38 PM

"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.

Peter Gottlieb

April 17th 04, 09:45 PM

Whenever we get into these kinds of discussions it usually means things are
going OK and we have no major issues to unite against.

I hope all continues to go well this year, GA could use it!

Peter

Steven P. McNicoll

April 17th 04, 09:48 PM

> 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.

David Dyer-Bennet

April 17th 04, 09:49 PM

"C J Campbell" > writes:

> "Theorem" > wrote in message
> ...
>> BllFs6 wrote:
>>
>> >>Liberalism is Communism one drink at a time. - P.J. O'Rourke
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> > If only it was even as good as that :)
>> >
>> > Liberalism is more imprisoning than communism ever thought of being
> while
>> > hiding under the fake facade of true freedom.....
>>
>> Jesus was a liberal.
>
> Then why do liberals hate him? Why don't liberals espouse the principals
> that Jesus taught?

In fact, we do, mostly. We just deny that he's a particularly
authoritative source, and arrive at many of the same principles from
other directions.

Now, if the *Christians* could just get together around those
principles, we might have something.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, >, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/>
RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com> <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/>
Photos: <dd-b.lighthunters.net> Snapshots: <www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/>
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/>

Steven P. McNicoll

April 17th 04, 09:55 PM

> 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

April 17th 04, 10:13 PM

> 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

April 17th 04, 10:20 PM

"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

April 17th 04, 10:24 PM

"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

April 17th 04, 10:28 PM

"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.

Steven P. McNicoll

April 17th 04, 10:31 PM

"Philip Sondericker" > wrote in message
...
>
> Okay, I was gonna stay out of this, but since people are comparing
> liberalism to poison, cigarettes and other cancerous substances, it
> may be time to remind everyone that our country was founded on
> some quite liberal principles. Thomas Jefferson would likely be
> appalled to hear liberalism likened to "poison".
>

Thomas Jefferson was a classic liberal. When people use the term "liberal"
or "liberalism" today they are referring to modern liberalism. Classic
liberalism and modern liberalism are polar opposites.

C J Campbell

April 17th 04, 10:31 PM

"David Dyer-Bennet" > wrote in message
...
> >>
> >> Jesus was a liberal.
> >
> > Then why do liberals hate him? Why don't liberals espouse the principals
> > that Jesus taught?
>
> In fact, we do, mostly. We just deny that he's a particularly
> authoritative source, and arrive at many of the same principles from
> other directions.
>
> Now, if the *Christians* could just get together around those
> principles, we might have something.
> --

Ah. I was not aware that Jesus had said much about politics at all. Can you
show me where Jesus taught enforced socialism? Where he favors abortion?
What was Jesus' opinion of immigration? What did he think of campaign
finance reform? What was his opinion of gay marriage? Where does Jesus say
that governments should own all property? What did Jesus say about gun
rights? What did he say about freedom of the press or of speech?

Now, Jesus did say that adulterers, thieves, whoremongers, and the like will
be thrust down to Hell, which does not bode well for most liberals (or
conservatives, either). He also said that those who repent and stop doing
those things will not suffer such a fate, but I don't find many liberals
taking that very seriously. Jesus cursed the only tree mentioned in the
narratives, and it died, so he can hardly be considered much of an
environmentalist. In fact, he expresses no concern whatsoever when his
disciples catch so many fish that the boat is in danger of sinking. Of
course, the Creator of all things in Heaven and Earth could just create
another tree or more fish if he wanted, so maybe he had different
perspective.

The most that can be said for Jesus' political opinions is that he said you
should obey the laws of the land, be a good citizen, treat your servants and
slaves well, and pay your taxes. He also said you should keep the
commandments and that even anger was a form of murder and that looking at
other women was adultery. Nope. I don't see where either liberals or
conservatives have much claim to be followers of Jesus. Sorry.

Dan Luke

April 17th 04, 10:34 PM

"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

Steven P. McNicoll

April 17th 04, 10:34 PM

"darwin smith" > wrote in message
link.net...
>
> how much of the money spent on highway maintanance due
> to damage from trucks, and how much is from damage by cars?
>

How much damage do you think a car is going to do to a highway that was
built to support trucks?

Bob Noel

April 17th 04, 10:34 PM

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

April 17th 04, 10:38 PM

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

Jefferson godless?

C J Campbell

April 17th 04, 10:46 PM

"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

April 17th 04, 10:47 PM

"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

April 17th 04, 10:50 PM

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

April 17th 04, 10:58 PM

"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

Martin Hotze

April 17th 04, 11:04 PM

On Fri, 16 Apr 2004 19:01:43 -0500, Joe Young wrote:

>Tell me
>about all the wonderful qualities that make him qualified to be the leader
>of the free world................

Whoever is next president over there:
He is 'only' the leader (president) of the US of A.

#m

--
A far-reaching proposal from the FBI (...) would require all broadband
Internet providers, including cable modem and DSL companies, to rewire
their networks to support easy wiretapping by police.
http://news.com.com/2100-1028-5172948.html

Martin Hotze

April 17th 04, 11:08 PM

On Sat, 17 Apr 2004 20:18:41 GMT, Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

>> Then why the fight against gay marriage?
>>
>
>What fight against gay marriage?

How about a fight FOR 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.

abortion will always kill a child. there is no way to not kill a child
while aborting. it is 'only' a matter of definition (when is it a child?).

>> Why the fight against pr0n?
>
>What's pr0n?

porn.
pr0n is just another way to spell it. :-)

#m

--
A far-reaching proposal from the FBI (...) would require all broadband
Internet providers, including cable modem and DSL companies, to rewire
their networks to support easy wiretapping by police.
http://news.com.com/2100-1028-5172948.html

darwin smith

April 17th 04, 11:11 PM

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

>
>

darwin smith

April 17th 04, 11:14 PM

David Dyer-Bennet wrote:

>"C J Campbell" > writes:
>
>
>
>>"Theorem" > wrote in message
...
>>
>>
>>>BllFs6 wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>Liberalism is Communism one drink at a time. - P.J. O'Rourke
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>If only it was even as good as that :)
>>>>
>>>>Liberalism is more imprisoning than communism ever thought of being
>>>>
>>>>
>>while
>>
>>
>>>>hiding under the fake facade of true freedom.....
>>>>
>>>>
>>>Jesus was a liberal.
>>>
>>>
>>Then why do liberals hate him? Why don't liberals espouse the principals
>>that Jesus taught?
>>
>>
>
>In fact, we do, mostly. We just deny that he's a particularly
>authoritative source, and arrive at many of the same principles from
>other directions.
>
>Now, if the *Christians* could just get together around those
>principles, we might have something.
>
Congratulations! Now we can argue unproductively about both politics
and religion
in the same thread.

Rich Lemert

Steven P. McNicoll

April 17th 04, 11:26 PM

"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.

Steven P. McNicoll

April 17th 04, 11:31 PM

"Martin Hotze" > wrote in message
...
>
> How about a fight FOR gay marriage?
>

No need. Gays marry.

>
> abortion will always kill a child. there is no way to not kill a child
> while aborting. it is 'only' a matter of definition
>

Not necessarily. A procedure may be developed that terminates a woman's
pregnancy without harming the child. Until that time abortion is murder.

>
> (when is it a child?).
>

Conception.

>
> porn.
> pr0n is just another way to spell it. :-)
>

What's porn?

Philip Sondericker

April 17th 04, 11:44 PM

in article , C J Campbell at
wrote on 4/17/04 11:37 AM:

>
> "Philip Sondericker" > wrote in message
> ...
>>>>
>>>
>>> People still buy cigarettes.... How can anyone possibly explain why vast
>>> numbers of people will continue to buy something that burns their mouths
> and
>>> lungs, makes the eyes sting, smells bad, makes food taste bad, is likely
> to
>>> burn themselves, their friends, and their possessions, and is deadly
>>> poisonous to boot, and even claim that they 'enjoy' it? Perhaps
> liberalism
>>> is to politics what tobacco is to recreation.
>>>
>>> Maybe JFK was right after all, when he claimed that he was a jelly
> doughnut.
>>> :-)
>>
>> Okay, I was gonna stay out of this, but since people are comparing
>> liberalism to poison, cigarettes and other cancerous substances, it may be
>> time to remind everyone that our country was founded on some quite liberal
>> principles. Thomas Jefferson would likely be appalled to hear liberalism
>> likened to "poison".
>>
>
> Some people have no sense of humor. :-(
>
> All right, you want to play it that way, Thomas Jefferson would likely be
> appalled to hear what modern day liberalism espouses (socialism,
> restrictions on freedom of speech on campus and in the press, restrictions
> on the right to bear arms, restrictions on the right to practice your
> religion, racial quotas, seizure of personal property for public use without
> compensation, abandonment of morals, restrictions on campaign advertising
> and financing, etc.). Thomas Jefferson liberals are what we call
> conservatives nowadays.

Nonsense. If a free-thinking humanist like Jefferson were around today,
espousing things like the separation of church and state and the importance
of public education (which he all but invented), you'd probably dismiss him
as a left-wing whacko.

> Most liberals hate Jefferson

I don't suppose you've got the slightest data to back up this assertion, do
you?

> and tar his reputation and his principles
> whenever they can. Modern day liberals portray Jefferson as an oppressive
> white slave owner and rapist, an establishment figure tied to big money and
> corrupt politics. If Jefferson is mentioned in public schools at all, it is
> to highlight the shameful and oppressive past of the white male dictators
> that established the United States. That is all most modern grade school
> kids know about Jefferson.

This must be a relatively recent develepment, because I for one can't recall
ever being taught any such thing. You're basically just making this up,
aren't you?

Philip Sondericker

April 17th 04, 11:45 PM

in article , C J Campbell at
wrote on 4/17/04 11:38 AM:

>
> "Theorem" > wrote in message
> ...
>> BllFs6 wrote:
>>
>>>> Liberalism is Communism one drink at a time. - P.J. O'Rourke
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> If only it was even as good as that :)
>>>
>>> Liberalism is more imprisoning than communism ever thought of being
> while
>>> hiding under the fake facade of true freedom.....
>>
>> Jesus was a liberal.
>
> Then why do liberals hate him? Why don't liberals espouse the principals
> that Jesus taught?

Sheesh, every time they try to give to the poor, you accuse them of
redistributing wealth.

Philip Sondericker

April 17th 04, 11:47 PM

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

April 17th 04, 11:48 PM

"Philip Sondericker" > wrote in message
...
>
> Sheesh, every time they try to give to the poor, you accuse them of
> redistributing wealth.
>

They are free to give their own money to the poor if they so choose. When
they use government force to take money from other people to give to the
poor they are stealing.

Steven P. McNicoll

April 17th 04, 11:49 PM

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

What caused you to think that?

Ray Andraka

April 18th 04, 12:10 AM

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

C J Campbell

April 18th 04, 01:23 AM

"darwin smith" > wrote in message
link.net...
> >>>>
> >>>Jesus was a liberal.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>Then why do liberals hate him? Why don't liberals espouse the principals
> >>that Jesus taught?
> >>
> >>
> >
> >In fact, we do, mostly. We just deny that he's a particularly
> >authoritative source, and arrive at many of the same principles from
> >other directions.
> >
> >Now, if the *Christians* could just get together around those
> >principles, we might have something.
> >
> Congratulations! Now we can argue unproductively about both politics
> and religion
> in the same thread.
>

I am certain, however, that Jesus did slips with flaps. While programming in
FORTH. On a Windows PC.

Steven P. McNicoll

April 18th 04, 01:24 AM

"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.

Bob Noel

April 18th 04, 01:37 AM

In article >,
wrote:

> >Jesus was a liberal.
>
> well ... but he is dead.

was

--
Bob Noel

Steven P. McNicoll

April 18th 04, 01:43 AM

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...
>
> I am certain, however, that Jesus did slips with flaps.
> While programming in FORTH. On a Windows PC.
>

To bring a bit of piloting back into this discussion, Jesus handled a plane
well.

darwin smith

April 18th 04, 01:52 AM

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

darwin smith

April 18th 04, 01:57 AM

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

>"Martin Hotze" > wrote in message
...
>
>
>>How about a fight FOR gay marriage?
>>
>>
>>
>
>No need. Gays marry.
>
I take it from this that you have no problem with same-sex marriages.
Good. Now maybe
we can get down to the real issue - that gay's don't automatically
receive the same rights
granted to conventional couples; ie the same inheritence rights, the
same rights of legal
guardianship, and the like.

Rich Lemert

>
>

Steven P. McNicoll

April 18th 04, 02:04 AM

"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

April 18th 04, 02:04 AM

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

Steven P. McNicoll

April 18th 04, 02:08 AM

"darwin smith" > wrote in message
hlink.net...
>
> I take it from this that you have no problem with same-sex marriages.
>

Well, since same sex marriage does not exist, no, I have no problem with it.

>
> Good. Now maybe
> we can get down to the real issue - that gay's don't automatically
> receive the same rights
> granted to conventional couples; ie the same inheritence rights, the
> same rights of legal
> guardianship, and the like.
>

Gays have exactly the same rights as conventional couples.

Matt Whiting

April 18th 04, 02:08 AM

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

April 18th 04, 02:12 AM

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

April 18th 04, 02:33 AM

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

April 18th 04, 02:44 AM

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

April 18th 04, 02:49 AM

"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

April 18th 04, 02:54 AM

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

April 18th 04, 03:01 AM

"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.

Dave Stadt

April 18th 04, 03:03 AM

"Philip Sondericker" > wrote in message
...
> in article , C J Campbell at
> wrote on 4/16/04 8:04 AM:
>
> >
> > "BllFs6" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >>> Liberalism is Communism one drink at a time. - P.J. O'Rourke
> >>>
> >>
> >> If only it was even as good as that :)
> >>
> >> Liberalism is more imprisoning than communism ever thought of being
while
> >> hiding under the fake facade of true freedom.....
> >>
> >> Its much better when poision is labeled poison, tastes like poison, and
> >> everyone knows its poison.....rather than thinking and being told its
free
> >> jelly doughnuts instead....
> >>
> >
> > People still buy cigarettes.... How can anyone possibly explain why vast
> > numbers of people will continue to buy something that burns their mouths
and
> > lungs, makes the eyes sting, smells bad, makes food taste bad, is likely
to
> > burn themselves, their friends, and their possessions, and is deadly
> > poisonous to boot, and even claim that they 'enjoy' it? Perhaps
liberalism
> > is to politics what tobacco is to recreation.
> >
> > Maybe JFK was right after all, when he claimed that he was a jelly
doughnut.
> > :-)
>
> Okay, I was gonna stay out of this, but since people are comparing
> liberalism to poison, cigarettes and other cancerous substances, it may be
> time to remind everyone that our country was founded on some quite liberal
> principles. Thomas Jefferson would likely be appalled to hear liberalism
> likened to "poison".
>
> C'mon folks, one of the reasons our country is so divided is rhetoric such
> as this. Turn off Sean Hannity's rants for 10 seconds and get yourselves
> together. Sheesh.

Jefferson would puke if he were exposed to today's so called liberalism.

Dave Stadt

April 18th 04, 03:11 AM

"Philip Sondericker" > wrote in message
...
> in article , C J Campbell at
> wrote on 4/17/04 11:37 AM:
>
> >
> > "Philip Sondericker" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> People still buy cigarettes.... How can anyone possibly explain why
vast
> >>> numbers of people will continue to buy something that burns their
mouths
> > and
> >>> lungs, makes the eyes sting, smells bad, makes food taste bad, is
likely
> > to
> >>> burn themselves, their friends, and their possessions, and is deadly
> >>> poisonous to boot, and even claim that they 'enjoy' it? Perhaps
> > liberalism
> >>> is to politics what tobacco is to recreation.
> >>>
> >>> Maybe JFK was right after all, when he claimed that he was a jelly
> > doughnut.
> >>> :-)
> >>
> >> Okay, I was gonna stay out of this, but since people are comparing
> >> liberalism to poison, cigarettes and other cancerous substances, it may
be
> >> time to remind everyone that our country was founded on some quite
liberal
> >> principles. Thomas Jefferson would likely be appalled to hear
liberalism
> >> likened to "poison".
> >>
> >
> > Some people have no sense of humor. :-(
> >
> > All right, you want to play it that way, Thomas Jefferson would likely
be
> > appalled to hear what modern day liberalism espouses (socialism,
> > restrictions on freedom of speech on campus and in the press,
restrictions
> > on the right to bear arms, restrictions on the right to practice your
> > religion, racial quotas, seizure of personal property for public use
without
> > compensation, abandonment of morals, restrictions on campaign
advertising
> > and financing, etc.). Thomas Jefferson liberals are what we call
> > conservatives nowadays.
>
> Nonsense. If a free-thinking humanist like Jefferson were around today,
> espousing things like the separation of church and state and the
importance
> of public education (which he all but invented), you'd probably dismiss
him
> as a left-wing whacko.
>
> > Most liberals hate Jefferson
>
> I don't suppose you've got the slightest data to back up this assertion,
do
> you?
>
> > and tar his reputation and his principles
> > whenever they can. Modern day liberals portray Jefferson as an
oppressive
> > white slave owner and rapist, an establishment figure tied to big money
and
> > corrupt politics. If Jefferson is mentioned in public schools at all, it
is
> > to highlight the shameful and oppressive past of the white male
dictators
> > that established the United States. That is all most modern grade school
> > kids know about Jefferson.
>
> This must be a relatively recent develepment, because I for one can't
recall
> ever being taught any such thing. You're basically just making this up,
> aren't you?

You obviously have no idea what is being taught in the liberal run education
system in this country.

Tarver Engineering

April 18th 04, 03:13 AM

"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

April 18th 04, 03:17 AM

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.
>
>

Philip Sondericker

April 18th 04, 03:18 AM

in article , Dave Stadt at
wrote on 4/17/04 7:11 PM:

>
> "Philip Sondericker" > wrote in message
> ...
>> in article , C J Campbell at
>> wrote on 4/17/04 11:37 AM:

>>>If Jefferson is mentioned in public schools at all, it
>>> is
>>> to highlight the shameful and oppressive past of the white male
>>> dictators
>>> that established the United States. That is all most modern grade school
>>> kids know about Jefferson.
>>
>> This must be a relatively recent develepment, because I for one can't
>> recall
>> ever being taught any such thing. You're basically just making this up,
>> aren't you?
>
> You obviously have no idea what is being taught in the liberal run education
> system in this country.

"If Jefferson is mentioned in public schools at all, it is to highlight the
shameful and oppressive past of the white male dictators that established
the United States. That is all most modern grade school kids know about
Jefferson."

Would anyone care to cite some proof of the above statement?

Philip Sondericker

April 18th 04, 03:19 AM

in article , Dave Stadt at
wrote on 4/17/04 7:03 PM:

>
> "Philip Sondericker" > wrote in message
> ...
>> in article , C J Campbell at
>> wrote on 4/16/04 8:04 AM:
>>
>>>
>>> "BllFs6" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>>> Liberalism is Communism one drink at a time. - P.J. O'Rourke
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> If only it was even as good as that :)
>>>>
>>>> Liberalism is more imprisoning than communism ever thought of being
> while
>>>> hiding under the fake facade of true freedom.....
>>>>
>>>> Its much better when poision is labeled poison, tastes like poison, and
>>>> everyone knows its poison.....rather than thinking and being told its
> free
>>>> jelly doughnuts instead....
>>>>
>>>
>>> People still buy cigarettes.... How can anyone possibly explain why vast
>>> numbers of people will continue to buy something that burns their mouths
> and
>>> lungs, makes the eyes sting, smells bad, makes food taste bad, is likely
> to
>>> burn themselves, their friends, and their possessions, and is deadly
>>> poisonous to boot, and even claim that they 'enjoy' it? Perhaps
> liberalism
>>> is to politics what tobacco is to recreation.
>>>
>>> Maybe JFK was right after all, when he claimed that he was a jelly
> doughnut.
>>> :-)
>>
>> Okay, I was gonna stay out of this, but since people are comparing
>> liberalism to poison, cigarettes and other cancerous substances, it may be
>> time to remind everyone that our country was founded on some quite liberal
>> principles. Thomas Jefferson would likely be appalled to hear liberalism
>> likened to "poison".
>>
>> C'mon folks, one of the reasons our country is so divided is rhetoric such
>> as this. Turn off Sean Hannity's rants for 10 seconds and get yourselves
>> together. Sheesh.
>
> Jefferson would puke if he were exposed to today's so called liberalism.

Okay, nevermind. Back to Hannity.

Steven P. McNicoll

April 18th 04, 03:21 AM

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

By creating wealth.

Steven P. McNicoll

April 18th 04, 03:22 AM

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

Freedom.

Tarver Engineering

April 18th 04, 03:23 AM

"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

April 18th 04, 04:27 AM

"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

April 18th 04, 04:43 AM

"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

April 18th 04, 04:57 AM

"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?

C J Campbell

April 18th 04, 04:59 AM

"Philip Sondericker" > wrote in message
...
> in article , C J Campbell at
> wrote on 4/17/04 5:25 PM:
>
> >
> > "Philip Sondericker" > wrote in message
> > news:BCA7013F.D40EA%> >>
> >>>> Jesus was a liberal.
> >>>
> >>> Then why do liberals hate him? Why don't liberals espouse the
principals
> >>> that Jesus taught?
> >>
> >> Sheesh, every time they try to give to the poor, you accuse them of
> >> redistributing wealth.
> >>
> >
> > Where did Jesus go around with a band of Roman soldiers, robbing people
at
> > swordpoint so that he could give money to the poor? For that is what
> > so-called liberals do today.
>
> I really don't understand this all this raving. Do you really believe that
> people go around robbing other people at swordpoint?
>

If John and Peter get together and take money from Paul at gunpoint, we call
it armed robbery. If two thousand voters get together and decide to take
money from another thousand, we call it taxation.

Do you really believe that the collection of taxes is not backed up with the
threat of armed force? Try not paying your taxes. Ignore all letters and
demands for payment and refuse to move out of your home when it is auctioned
off to pay the taxes. Sooner or later gentlemen with guns will be on your
doorstep. If you continue to resist, they will kill you.

If there is a difference between a mugger and the government in this regard
it is that the mugger generally does not keep coming back and he does not
demand your absolute loyalty like the government does.

Traditionally liberals recognized that governments were a necessary evil
required to maintain order, provide for the common defense, and protect
property. The liberal idea is that government exists for the benefit of the
governed, not the government. In the days of monarchy and the divine right
of kings, this was a pretty radical idea. The goal of liberalism was to
provide a limited government with severely restricted powers. The governed
would enjoy most of the benefits of government without tyranny. The people
would be allowed to arm themselves in order to overthrow a tyrannical
government. The government was forbidden to interfere in the press and in
religious affairs in order to ensure that a voice other than that of the
government was heard. All well and good.

But what do we have now? Liberals using the government to silence dissent.
Liberals using government power for enforced redistribution of wealth.
Liberals using government power to seize private property. Liberals using
government power to interfere with the practice of religion. Liberals using
government power to intrude on family life. Liberals using government power
to disarm the public. Liberals using government power to promote pork barrel
projects. Liberals using government power to prevent competing newspapers
from providing an alternate voice. Liberals have become the tyranny that
they feared and sought to prevent.

A liberal education no longer means that you have been taught to think. Now
it means you have been brainwashed. The great liberal classics are no longer
even studied in schools. They are disparaged as the work of dead white
males. Mortimer Adler was perhaps the last proponent of a liberal education,
and he was basically a tombist and sell-out to the new Toryism.

Because that is what liberalism has become. There really are no
'conservatives' in government. George W. Bush is a liberal; his views differ
from those of other liberals only in degree and emphasis, not in kind. The
same goes for everybody else in government. Modern liberals have far more in
common with Tories than they do with liberalism. Having seized power, they
have become corrupted by it, entrenching themselves with a vigor that would
do credit to a Caesar.

It is not a new phenomenon. Paul described modern liberals fairly
succinctly:

1 THIS know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come.

2 For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud,
blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy,

3 Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent,
fierce, despisers of those that are good,

4 Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God;

5 Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn
away.

6 For of this sort are they which creep into houses, and lead captive silly
women laden with sins, led away with divers lusts,

7 Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.

(2 Timothy 3:1-7)

Paul was far from alone in his view of what liberalism would become. George
Orwell, a liberal, shared the same misgivings. "1984" and "Animal Farm" are
not indictments of conservatism, they are warnings of what Orwell saw the
direction liberalism was taking. Aldous Huxley saw a similar vision of
ultimate liberal betrayal of liberal values, where government and society
were controlled by media conglomerates and personalities specially bred for
rule. All the liberal classics would be banned and society would be
controlled using sex and drugs. Frankly, Huxley's prescience in predicting
what would become of liberalism is both frightening and spot on.

Judah

April 18th 04, 05:03 AM

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

April 18th 04, 05:05 AM

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

April 18th 04, 05:20 AM

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

By whom?

S Green

April 18th 04, 08:45 AM

"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

April 18th 04, 08:51 AM

"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

April 18th 04, 08:56 AM

"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]

April 18th 04, 12:28 PM

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]

April 18th 04, 12:33 PM

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.

Joe Young

April 18th 04, 12:36 PM

"Philip Sondericker" > wrote in message
...
> in article , Dave Stadt at
> wrote on 4/17/04 7:11 PM:
>
> >
> > "Philip Sondericker" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >> in article , C J Campbell at
> >> wrote on 4/17/04 11:37 AM:
>
> >>>If Jefferson is mentioned in public schools at all, it
> >>> is
> >>> to highlight the shameful and oppressive past of the white male
> >>> dictators
> >>> that established the United States. That is all most modern grade
school
> >>> kids know about Jefferson.
> >>
> >> This must be a relatively recent develepment, because I for one can't
> >> recall
> >> ever being taught any such thing. You're basically just making this up,
> >> aren't you?
> >
> > You obviously have no idea what is being taught in the liberal run
education
> > system in this country.
>
> "If Jefferson is mentioned in public schools at all, it is to highlight
the
> shameful and oppressive past of the white male dictators that established
> the United States. That is all most modern grade school kids know about
> Jefferson."
>
> Would anyone care to cite some proof of the above statement?
>

Head over to your local Jr/Sr high school history department and see for
yourself.........

[email protected]

April 18th 04, 12:37 PM

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]

April 18th 04, 12:39 PM

"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

April 18th 04, 12:52 PM

"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

April 18th 04, 12:54 PM

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

By making the entire pie larger.

Matt

Matt Whiting

April 18th 04, 12:55 PM

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

April 18th 04, 12:58 PM

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

April 18th 04, 12:59 PM

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

BllFs6

April 18th 04, 02:05 PM

>How much damage do you think a car is going to do to a highway that was
>built to support trucks?

Actually for ALL practical purposes....heavy trucks DO ALL the damage to a
properly engineered roadway....

The same is true for heavy aircraft vs little light ones on runways...I know
because I worked in a runway/pavement engineering group for a few years....

Another interesting tidbid is the damage done is VERY non-linear.....

A road/runway can take millions and millions of load cycles at say 90 percent
of its design load, virtually an infinite number at say 50 percent or less, and
somelike only a few hundred at 100 percent...and only a few at 105 percent....

So, truckers can bitch all they want about paying all those "taxes" but I
guarantee you they do ALL the damage as well...(same goes for heavy
airplanes)...

And this brings up a few more points....if cheap/stupid politicians would just
make the damn roads a smidgen thicker (and costing a smidgen more) the roads
would last so long the'd generally need no repairs until it was time to tear
them up because they had become outdated and need to be redesigned...

And legal Folks need to be REALLY tough (as in cut your balls off and take the
truck away) for overloaded trucks...because it only takes a few or even one to
exceed the load limit of a road and once that road is "broken", further road
cycles at MUCH less than the design limit will rapidly and continously cause
further degradation...

take care

Blll

Judah

April 18th 04, 02:10 PM

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

April 18th 04, 02:16 PM

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

April 18th 04, 02:18 PM

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

April 18th 04, 02:20 PM

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

April 18th 04, 02:33 PM

"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

April 18th 04, 02:33 PM

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."

Martin Hotze

April 18th 04, 02:41 PM

On Sat, 17 Apr 2004 22:31:29 GMT, Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

>> abortion will always kill a child. there is no way to not kill a child
>> while aborting. it is 'only' a matter of definition
>>
>
>Not necessarily. A procedure may be developed that terminates a woman's
>pregnancy without harming the child. Until that time abortion is murder.
>

below you state that life begins with conception. How will it then be
posible to terminate the pregnancy without harming (killing) the child?

You can only pass this issue with: let life (legally; for the lawyers)
begin (for example) in the 5th week after conception (or any other legal
ways).

>> (when is it a child?).
>>
>
>Conception.

#m

--
A far-reaching proposal from the FBI (...) would require all broadband
Internet providers, including cable modem and DSL companies, to rewire
their networks to support easy wiretapping by police.
http://news.com.com/2100-1028-5172948.html

Martin Hotze

April 18th 04, 02:41 PM

On Sun, 18 Apr 2004 01:08:16 GMT, Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

>> I take it from this that you have no problem with same-sex marriages.
>>
>
>Well, since same sex marriage does not exist, no, I have no problem with it.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

in Message-ID: . net> you
wrote that gays marry.

#m
--
A far-reaching proposal from the FBI (...) would require all broadband
Internet providers, including cable modem and DSL companies, to rewire
their networks to support easy wiretapping by police.
http://news.com.com/2100-1028-5172948.html

C J Campbell

April 18th 04, 02:45 PM

"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.

Martin Hotze

April 18th 04, 02:46 PM

On Sat, 17 Apr 2004 18:31:49 -0700, Pete wrote:

>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.

this brings you to a very slippery ground.

#m

--
A far-reaching proposal from the FBI (...) would require all broadband
Internet providers, including cable modem and DSL companies, to rewire
their networks to support easy wiretapping by police.
http://news.com.com/2100-1028-5172948.html

Martin Hotze

April 18th 04, 02:46 PM

On Sun, 18 Apr 2004 01:04:02 GMT, Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

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

so, what is the difference, then?

#m

--
A far-reaching proposal from the FBI (...) would require all broadband
Internet providers, including cable modem and DSL companies, to rewire
their networks to support easy wiretapping by police.
http://news.com.com/2100-1028-5172948.html

Martin Hotze

April 18th 04, 02:51 PM

On Sun, 18 Apr 2004 01:04:02 GMT, Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

>> 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.

hmm. are you discussing the method of how it is done or the fact that it is
(or is not) done?

let me compare it to the death penalty:
you can say that the electric chair is "inhuman" to kill somebody. it
remains killing (or revenge or whatever you like to call it).
you can use a lethal injection. this might be more human, but the effect or
outcome remains the same.

and the same goes for abortion. you can make it legal, illegal, don't
enforce legal action within the first 4 weeks, yadda yadda yadda. but it
remains the termination of life (when you call it life at the point of
conception).

#m

--
A far-reaching proposal from the FBI (...) would require all broadband
Internet providers, including cable modem and DSL companies, to rewire
their networks to support easy wiretapping by police.
http://news.com.com/2100-1028-5172948.html

Martin Hotze

April 18th 04, 02:53 PM

On Sun, 18 Apr 2004 06:52:29 -0500, Joe Young wrote:

>Maybe we should
>also put down newborns with any physical, mental or genetic abnormalidies.

this has been done by the nazis.

>It is all called murder you moron.

and back then it was legal. (not that I favour such action!)

see? it is only a matter of definition.
sure, this is really extrem, but the point remains.

#m

--
A far-reaching proposal from the FBI (...) would require all broadband
Internet providers, including cable modem and DSL companies, to rewire
their networks to support easy wiretapping by police.
http://news.com.com/2100-1028-5172948.html

Martin Hotze

April 18th 04, 02:57 PM

On Sat, 17 Apr 2004 21:12:52 -0400, Matt Whiting wrote:

>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.

Good. So it is not morally acceptable by you (and many others). But how
comes you take the right to make this decision for so many others, too? You
call them murderer and morally inacceptable (maybe without knowing the
background).

In many (all?) countries in Europe, abortion is allowed (no legal action is
taken). So you put ALL those European women who abort in one basket and
call them and their doctors murderers and morally inacceptable?

#m

--
A far-reaching proposal from the FBI (...) would require all broadband
Internet providers, including cable modem and DSL companies, to rewire
their networks to support easy wiretapping by police.
http://news.com.com/2100-1028-5172948.html

[email protected]

April 18th 04, 03:00 PM

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.

Martin Hotze

April 18th 04, 03:01 PM

On Sat, 17 Apr 2004 21:08:17 -0400, Matt Whiting wrote:

>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.
>

yeah, they brought it on TV here in Europe. Groups where formed (mostlöy in
the bible bealt area) with "we remain virgins until our marriage" and the
like .... and they also brought the funding for supporting some weired
ideas and not funding courses for teaching contraception methods. how sick.
well; it is sick in our mindset. within the mindset of those people it was
perfectly normal.

#m

--
A far-reaching proposal from the FBI (...) would require all broadband
Internet providers, including cable modem and DSL companies, to rewire
their networks to support easy wiretapping by police.
http://news.com.com/2100-1028-5172948.html

[email protected]

April 18th 04, 03:02 PM

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

April 18th 04, 03:04 PM

"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.
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

Martin Hotze

April 18th 04, 03:08 PM

On Sun, 18 Apr 2004 00:43:17 GMT, Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

>> I am certain, however, that Jesus did slips with flaps.
>> While programming in FORTH. On a Windows PC.
>>
>
>To bring a bit of piloting back into this discussion, Jesus handled a plane
>well.

I bet Jesus was more into boating. He walked over water.

#m

--
A far-reaching proposal from the FBI (...) would require all broadband
Internet providers, including cable modem and DSL companies, to rewire
their networks to support easy wiretapping by police.
http://news.com.com/2100-1028-5172948.html

Dan Luke

April 18th 04, 03:12 PM

"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

April 18th 04, 03:12 PM

> >Maybe we should
> >also put down newborns with any physical, mental or genetic
abnormalidies.
>
> this has been done by the nazis.

Your making my point Martin. The world was outraged by the actions of
Mengele and others in the German camps, but the number of innocent lives (of
defenseless babies) taken each year in the US and Europe makes those
atrocities pale by comparison.

> >It is all called murder you moron.
>
> and back then it was legal. (not that I favour such action!)
>
I am glad you haven't take a liking to killing....

> see? it is only a matter of definition.
> sure, this is really extrem, but the point remains.

No it isn't a matter of definition...its murder!

C J Campbell

April 18th 04, 03:21 PM

"Martin Hotze" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 18 Apr 2004 00:43:17 GMT, Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
>
> >> I am certain, however, that Jesus did slips with flaps.
> >> While programming in FORTH. On a Windows PC.
> >>
> >
> >To bring a bit of piloting back into this discussion, Jesus handled a
plane
> >well.
>
> I bet Jesus was more into boating. He walked over water.
>

No doubt he would have enjoyed water skiing.

Joe Young

April 18th 04, 03:22 PM

"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

April 18th 04, 03:36 PM

"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

April 18th 04, 03:50 PM

"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

April 18th 04, 04:05 PM

"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

April 18th 04, 04:11 PM

"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

April 18th 04, 04:19 PM

"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

April 18th 04, 04:20 PM

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

April 18th 04, 04:20 PM

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".

Martin Hotze

April 18th 04, 04:23 PM

On Sun, 18 Apr 2004 09:12:29 -0500, Joe Young wrote:

>
>> >Maybe we should
>> >also put down newborns with any physical, mental or genetic
>abnormalidies.
>>
>> this has been done by the nazis.
>
>Your making my point Martin. The world was outraged by the actions of
>Mengele and others in the German camps,

this not only happened in camps but there was also a program for killing
"degenerated" children directly out of psychiatric stations and children
hospitals.

>> see? it is only a matter of definition.
>> sure, this is really extrem, but the point remains.
>
>No it isn't a matter of definition...its murder!

So you must also say that the death penalty is murder (no matter what you
achieve with it).

hm. and what is with murder while defending myself? is this murder, too? or
what is that?

#m

--
If John and Peter get together and take money from Paul at gunpoint,
we call it armed robbery. If two thousand voters get together
and decide to take money from another thousand, we call it taxation.
C J Campbell in rec.aviation.piloting

Martin Hotze

April 18th 04, 04:26 PM

On Sun, 18 Apr 2004 14:16:37 GMT, Pete wrote:

>> 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.

euthanasia is already legal in the Netherlands.
http://www.worthynews.com/news-features/euthanasia-netherland.html

#m

--
If John and Peter get together and take money from Paul at gunpoint,
we call it armed robbery. If two thousand voters get together
and decide to take money from another thousand, we call it taxation.
C J Campbell in rec.aviation.piloting

Dan Luke

April 18th 04, 04:30 PM

"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

April 18th 04, 04:32 PM

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

April 18th 04, 04:34 PM

"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.

Joe Young

April 18th 04, 04:36 PM

"Snip"
> >> see? it is only a matter of definition.
> >> sure, this is really extrem, but the point remains.
> >
> >No it isn't a matter of definition...its murder!
>
> So you must also say that the death penalty is murder (no matter what you
> achieve with it).

Nope, abortion and euthanasia are issues of convenience. A life is taken to
make someone elses life easier...that is murder. The death penalty is
punishment..you kill, you will be killed. period.

>
> hm. and what is with murder while defending myself? is this murder, too?
or
> what is that?

No...again I never said self defense is murder. Any and everyone should
have the right to defend themselves by all available means, including
killing their attacker.

L Smith

April 18th 04, 04:37 PM

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

April 18th 04, 04:44 PM

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.
>
>

Philip Sondericker

April 18th 04, 04:45 PM

in article , C J Campbell at
wrote on 4/17/04 8:59 PM:

>
> "Philip Sondericker" > wrote in message
> ...

>> I really don't understand this all this raving. Do you really believe that
>> people go around robbing other people at swordpoint?
>>
>
> If John and Peter get together and take money from Paul at gunpoint, we call
> it armed robbery. If two thousand voters get together and decide to take
> money from another thousand, we call it taxation.
>
> Do you really believe that the collection of taxes is not backed up with the
> threat of armed force?

You missed my point. Do you think "liberals" are going around robbing people
at the point of swords? Do you think taxation is an invention of "liberals"?
Do you think that any war could be fought without the "armed robbery" of
taxation?

L Smith

April 18th 04, 04:46 PM

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

April 18th 04, 04:47 PM

in article , Joe Young at
wrote on 4/18/04 4:36 AM:

>
> "Philip Sondericker" > wrote in message
> ...
>> in article , Dave Stadt at
>> wrote on 4/17/04 7:11 PM:
>>
>>>
>>> "Philip Sondericker" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> in article , C J Campbell at
>>>> wrote on 4/17/04 11:37 AM:
>>
>>>>> If Jefferson is mentioned in public schools at all, it
>>>>> is
>>>>> to highlight the shameful and oppressive past of the white male
>>>>> dictators
>>>>> that established the United States. That is all most modern grade
> school
>>>>> kids know about Jefferson.
>>>>
>>>> This must be a relatively recent develepment, because I for one can't
>>>> recall
>>>> ever being taught any such thing. You're basically just making this up,
>>>> aren't you?
>>>
>>> You obviously have no idea what is being taught in the liberal run
> education
>>> system in this country.
>>
>> "If Jefferson is mentioned in public schools at all, it is to highlight
> the
>> shameful and oppressive past of the white male dictators that established
>> the United States. That is all most modern grade school kids know about
>> Jefferson."
>>
>> Would anyone care to cite some proof of the above statement?
>>
>
> Head over to your local Jr/Sr high school history department and see for
> yourself.........

Sorry, that's anecdotal evidence, not proof (actually, it's not even
anecdotal evidence, since you offered no experiences of your own).

Joe Young

April 18th 04, 04:54 PM

"SNIP"
> >
> > Head over to your local Jr/Sr high school history department and see for
> > yourself.........
>
> Sorry, that's anecdotal evidence, not proof (actually, it's not even
> anecdotal evidence, since you offered no experiences of your own).
>

Let see...the alternative are for you to experience what is going on in my
kids classroom through me...or actually take the time to find out first hand
in your own locale. Granted the latter may take a bit more effort on your
part...but that was the point. I think most people would be surprised how
the curriculum has changed over the past couple of decades

Philip Sondericker

April 18th 04, 04:55 PM

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.

L Smith

April 18th 04, 04:57 PM

Dave Stadt wrote:

> You obviously have no idea what is being taught in the liberal run
> education
>
>system in this country.
>
The great shield of both the left and the right - rely on slogans and
avoid
anything that might smack of a fact. Facts have a couple of unnerving
habits -
they can be verified or disproven, and they are neutral. By themselves they
don't favor either side of the argument - this only happens when they are
"interpreted".

Rich Lemert

John Harlow

April 18th 04, 05:00 PM

> 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

April 18th 04, 05:02 PM

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

April 18th 04, 05:04 PM

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

Philip Sondericker

April 18th 04, 05:05 PM

in article , Joe Young at
wrote on 4/18/04 8:54 AM:

> "SNIP"
>>>
>>> Head over to your local Jr/Sr high school history department and see for
>>> yourself.........
>>
>> Sorry, that's anecdotal evidence, not proof (actually, it's not even
>> anecdotal evidence, since you offered no experiences of your own).
>>
>
> Let see...the alternative are for you to experience what is going on in my
> kids classroom through me

Okay, so you're a teacher. Please give some examples of your students being
taught at your school that Thomas Jefferson was a horrible guy.

>...or actually take the time to find out first hand
> in your own locale. Granted the latter may take a bit more effort on your
> part...but that was the point. I think most people would be surprised how
> the curriculum has changed over the past couple of decades

Okay, so show me the curriculum.

L Smith

April 18th 04, 05:17 PM

C J Campbell wrote:

> If John and Peter get together and take money from Paul at gunpoint,
> we call
>
>it armed robbery. If two thousand voters get together and decide to take
>money from another thousand, we call it taxation.
>
If, as you seem to imply, the only effect of 'taxation' was the direct
transfer of that
money from the pockets of the one thousand to the pockets of the two
thousand, you
might have an argument. Now, while I'm sure you'll be more than happy to
present
examples of where you think this is the case, I will maintain that this
would be a very
unusual situation.

So, to get to the heart of the matter, people who claim taxes are too
high, but who
refuse to consider what they are getting in return for those taxes, must
fall into one of
two groups. Either you don't wish to accept your responsibility for
living in modern
society (e.g. you want to enjoy the protection afforded by the police
and fire departments,
but you don't want to pay to maintain them), or you disagree with what
your taxes are
being spent on. It it's the latter, then quit hiding behind the tired
old "taxes are too high"
banner. Get to the point, and tell us exactly which programs you think
need to be
eliminated.

Rich Lemert

Joe Young

April 18th 04, 05:23 PM

"Philip Sondericker" > wrote in message
...
> in article , Joe Young at
> wrote on 4/18/04 8:54 AM:
>
> > "SNIP"
> >>>
> >>> Head over to your local Jr/Sr high school history department and see
for
> >>> yourself.........
> >>
> >> Sorry, that's anecdotal evidence, not proof (actually, it's not even
> >> anecdotal evidence, since you offered no experiences of your own).
> >>
> >
> > Let see...the alternative are for you to experience what is going on in
my
> > kids classroom through me
>
> Okay, so you're a teacher. Please give some examples of your students
being
> taught at your school that Thomas Jefferson was a horrible guy.
>
> >...or actually take the time to find out first hand
> > in your own locale. Granted the latter may take a bit more effort on
your
> > part...but that was the point. I think most people would be surprised
how
> > the curriculum has changed over the past couple of decades
>
> Okay, so show me the curriculum.
>

I am not a teacher...I do have two daughters... and am continually surprised
by what they bring home. One of the recent discussions pointed out that
many of our founding fathers were slave-owners and therefore were obviously
something less than honorable men...that point alone meant they unworthy of
any honor that had been bestowed upon them by the generations since. How
about the concept that we owe decedents of slaves reparations because their
ancestors were enslaved....and on and on....

The point I was attempting to make is I have not been involved in a local
school since I left high school 25 years ago. I am just surprised at the
revisionist crap I hear discussed. My point is I think there would be
others equally surprised if they would take the time to get involved
again.............

Bob Noel

April 18th 04, 05:25 PM

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

April 18th 04, 05:26 PM

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

April 18th 04, 05:29 PM

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

April 18th 04, 05:32 PM

"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

April 18th 04, 05:53 PM

"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]

April 18th 04, 05:59 PM

Newps wrote:

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

If that much. ;-)

[email protected]

April 18th 04, 06:01 PM

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]

April 18th 04, 06:04 PM

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.

Martin Hotze

April 18th 04, 06:11 PM

On Sun, 18 Apr 2004 10:36:49 -0500, Joe Young wrote:

>> >> see? it is only a matter of definition.
>> >> sure, this is really extrem, but the point remains.
>> >
>> >No it isn't a matter of definition...its murder!
>>
>> So you must also say that the death penalty is murder (no matter what you
>> achieve with it).
>
>Nope, abortion and euthanasia are issues of convenience. A life is taken to
>make someone elses life easier...that is murder. The death penalty is
>punishment..you kill, you will be killed. period.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

you define (see above: it is all a matter of definition) the death penalty
as punishment. fine. I define it as murder. It is a convenient (?) way to
get rid of the persons that do not fit into the scheme. See? your own
words, just with another topic.

#m

--
If John and Peter get together and take money from Paul at gunpoint,
we call it armed robbery. If two thousand voters get together
and decide to take money from another thousand, we call it taxation.
C J Campbell in rec.aviation.piloting

[email protected]

April 18th 04, 06:14 PM

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

April 18th 04, 06:28 PM

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.

Joe Young

April 18th 04, 06:36 PM

"Martin Hotze" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 18 Apr 2004 10:36:49 -0500, Joe Young wrote:
>
> >> >> see? it is only a matter of definition.
> >> >> sure, this is really extrem, but the point remains.
> >> >
> >> >No it isn't a matter of definition...its murder!
> >>
> >> So you must also say that the death penalty is murder (no matter what
you
> >> achieve with it).
> >
> >Nope, abortion and euthanasia are issues of convenience. A life is taken
to
> >make someone elses life easier...that is murder. The death penalty is
> >punishment..you kill, you will be killed. period.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> you define (see above: it is all a matter of definition) the death penalty
> as punishment. fine. I define it as murder. It is a convenient (?) way to
> get rid of the persons that do not fit into the scheme. See? your own
> words, just with another topic.
>

You know...your right...it is a matter of definition. Now let's see if we
can settle on a definition for abortion.... Should we use:

Murder....
Infanticide....
Baby killing...
I-don't-want-to-screw-up-my-life-so-I-am-going-to-kill-my-baby.............

allowing for the rape, incest and health of the mother exceptions, what do
you suppose is the reason behind the other 1.4 million abortions performed
in the US each year....

enough of this...lets get back to aviation....

Doug Carter

April 18th 04, 06:46 PM

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

April 18th 04, 07:27 PM

> 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

April 18th 04, 07:32 PM

> 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

April 18th 04, 07:39 PM

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

April 18th 04, 07:49 PM

"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

April 18th 04, 07:52 PM

"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

April 18th 04, 07:56 PM

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

Steven P. McNicoll

April 18th 04, 08:10 PM

"BllFs6" > wrote in message
...
>
> Actually for ALL practical purposes....heavy trucks DO ALL
> the damage to a properly engineered roadway....
>
> The same is true for heavy aircraft vs little light ones on runways...
> I know because I worked in a runway/pavement engineering
> group for a few years....
>

My point exactly. The only difference with regard to the vehicle/highway
versus aircraft/runway comparison is in numbers. If there were no cars we'd
need far fewer multi-lane superhighways in heavily trafficked areas. We'd
still need the same heavy-duty runways if general aviation did not exist.

Steven P. McNicoll

April 18th 04, 08:13 PM

"Martin Hotze" > wrote in message
...
>
> below you state that life begins with conception. How will it then be
> posible to terminate the pregnancy without harming (killing) the child?
>

I don't know. I'm not a doctor. I said a procedure MAY be developed that
terminates a woman's pregnancy without harming the child.

>
> You can only pass this issue with: let life (legally; for the lawyers)
> begin (for example) in the 5th week after conception (or any other legal
> ways).
>

Life begins at conception.

Steven P. McNicoll

April 18th 04, 08:13 PM

"Martin Hotze" > wrote in message
...
> >
> >Well, since same sex marriage does not exist, no, I have no problem with
it.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> in Message-ID: . net> you
> wrote that gays marry.
>

Yes. What's your point?

Judah

April 18th 04, 08:18 PM

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.
>
>

Steven P. McNicoll

April 18th 04, 08:18 PM

"Martin Hotze" > wrote in message
...
>
> I bet Jesus was more into boating. He walked over water.
>

Jesus was a carpenter. Why would one that can walk on water bother with a
boat.

Matt Whiting

April 18th 04, 09:27 PM

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

April 18th 04, 09:35 PM

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

April 18th 04, 09:36 PM

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

April 18th 04, 10:10 PM

"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.

C J Campbell

April 18th 04, 10:12 PM

"Philip Sondericker" > wrote in message
...
> >
> > Do you really believe that the collection of taxes is not backed up with
the
> > threat of armed force?
>
> You missed my point. Do you think "liberals" are going around robbing
people
> at the point of swords?

I think that is the effect of what they are doing, yes. Only they hire men
with guns to do it.

> Do you think taxation is an invention of "liberals"?

No, of course not. Did you think it was invented by "conservatives?"

> Do you think that any war could be fought without the "armed robbery" of
> taxation?

Again, of course not. What I am saying is that one would hope that liberals
would have been a little more judicious about the application of this "armed
robbery." It turns out that they are every bit as bad as any tyrant.

Steven P. McNicoll

April 18th 04, 10:14 PM

"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

April 18th 04, 10:16 PM

"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

April 18th 04, 10:21 PM

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

L Smith

April 18th 04, 10:27 PM

Joe Young wrote:

>
>You know...your right...it is a matter of definition. Now let's see if we
>can settle on a definition for abortion.... Should we use:
>
>Murder....
>Infanticide....
>Baby killing...
>I-don't-want-to-screw-up-my-life-so-I-am-going-to-kill-my-baby.............
>
>allowing for the rape, incest and health of the mother exceptions, what do
>you suppose is the reason behind the other 1.4 million abortions performed
>in the US each year....
>
Except for pregnancies terminated for valid medical reasons (health of
the mother,
severe fetal deformity, etc), the basic cause of any abortion is an
unwanted pregnancy.
You prevent that pregnancy, you prevent that abortion. Waiting until
after the pregnancy
has occured is too late - all you can do at that point is try to stop
the abortion from taking
place, you've lost your chance to prevent it.

Rich Lemert

>
>enough of this...lets get back to aviation....
>
>
>
>
>

Steven P. McNicoll

April 18th 04, 10:31 PM

"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

April 18th 04, 10:38 PM

> 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

April 18th 04, 10:38 PM

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

April 18th 04, 10:39 PM

"Martin Hotze" > wrote in message
...
>
> so, what is the difference, then?
>

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.

Steven P. McNicoll

April 18th 04, 10:49 PM

"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.

Steven P. McNicoll

April 18th 04, 10:56 PM

"Martin Hotze" > wrote in message
...
>
> hmm. are you discussing the method of how it is done or the fact
> that it is (or is not) done?
>

The procedure does not matter.

>
> let me compare it to the death penalty:
>

There is no comparison to the death penalty.

L Smith

April 18th 04, 10:59 PM

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

April 18th 04, 11:02 PM

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

Andrew Gideon

April 18th 04, 11:06 PM

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

>
> "Martin Hotze" > wrote in message
> ...
>> >
>> >Well, since same sex marriage does not exist, no, I have no problem with
> it.
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>
>> in Message-ID: . net>
>> you wrote that gays marry.
>>
>
> Yes. What's your point?

<Sigh>

Steven is claiming that gays marry people that are not of the same sex.
True in some cases, I suppose, but completely irrelevant.

Which he knows, of course.

It's just him playing his games. It avoids having to deal with the internal
inconsistency in an administration claiming to be for freedom also coming
out against the idea same-sex marriage...to the point of promoting the idea
of a constitutional ban.

- Andrew

Andrew Gideon

April 18th 04, 11:14 PM

Joe Young wrote:

> allowing for the rape, incest and health of the mother exceptions, what do
> you suppose is the reason behind the other 1.4 million abortions performed
> in the US each year....
>

Out of curiosity, why would you permit murder (by your definition) merely
because a parent was raped or indulged in incest?

If a parent was raped or indulged in incest, should a ten-year old child be
terminated?

- Andrew

Joe Young

April 18th 04, 11:23 PM

"SNIP"
> 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
>

Tell me Rich...why does anyone other than her parents need to tell her
anything? It seems to me the parents have the responsibility to initially
take the appropriate steps to insure the pregnancy does not occur. If that
fails...it is then their responsibility to guide her through that
challenging time in her life. There in lies the significant difference
between conservatives and liberals. Conservatives believe the
responsibility lies with the family...liberals believe only the "State" can
educate on matters of reproduction, and only the State can solve social
problems. Remember "it takes a village"?