Pilot's Political Orientation

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

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

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.

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.

"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.

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?

"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" 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.

"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.

"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.