A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Piloting
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Pilot's Political Orientation



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old April 16th 04, 10:43 PM
d b
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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.

  #22  
Old April 16th 04, 10:46 PM
Musky
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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****

  #23  
Old April 16th 04, 11:11 PM
Bob Noel
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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
  #24  
Old April 16th 04, 11:22 PM
Bob Noel
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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
  #25  
Old April 16th 04, 11:23 PM
Dave Stadt
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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.



  #26  
Old April 16th 04, 11:27 PM
Dave Stadt
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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.



  #27  
Old April 17th 04, 12:09 AM
Peter Gottlieb
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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?


  #28  
Old April 17th 04, 12:22 AM
Michael 182
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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****



  #29  
Old April 17th 04, 01:01 AM
Joe Young
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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.





  #30  
Old April 17th 04, 01:50 AM
G.R. Patterson III
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default



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".
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
AOPA Stall/Spin Study -- Stowell's Review (8,000 words) Rich Stowell Aerobatics 28 January 2nd 09 03:26 PM
Dover short pilots since vaccine order Roman Bystrianyk Naval Aviation 0 December 29th 04 01:47 AM
Pilot's Political Orientation Chicken Bone Owning 314 June 21st 04 06:10 PM
[OT] USA - TSA Obstructing Armed Pilots? No Spam! General Aviation 3 December 23rd 03 09:53 PM
AOPA Stall/Spin Study -- Stowell's Review (8,000 words) Rich Stowell Piloting 25 September 11th 03 01:27 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:16 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.