Pilot's Political Orientation

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:


"Andrew Gideon" wrote in message
gonline.com...

You cannot see it because you only know what you know, and
you refuse to acknowledge that anything you don't understand
can be right.


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

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

- Andrew

James Robinson wrote:
Joe Young wrote:

James Robinson wrote:

Joe Young wrote:

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

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

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/Da...oll010702.html

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

http://christianparty.net/abortiongallup.htm


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

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


Matt

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
...

No originally.



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



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

Matt

Matt Whiting wrote:

James Robinson wrote:
Joe Young wrote:

James Robinson wrote:

Joe Young wrote:

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

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

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/Da...oll010702.html

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

http://christianparty.net/abortiongallup.htm


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

Was is ABC or CBS that staged the Chevy pickup truck exploding gas tank?

Neither. That was NBC.

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

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

"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
...


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

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

That would include most every academic and government research group as
well.

"James Robinson" wrote in message
...

Was is ABC or CBS that staged the Chevy pickup truck exploding gas tank?

Neither. That was NBC.

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

You just have to be skeptical. At least there is an editorial board,
and they have to answer to the FCC.

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

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

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

They don't to the FCC for the factual content of the reports.

They answer to the FCC in broadcasting for the public good (or something like
that). Broadcasting falsities as true news would go against this and if enough
happens the FCC could get interested.

Jose


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

"James Robinson" wrote in message
...
Matt Whiting wrote:

James Robinson wrote:
Joe Young wrote:

James Robinson wrote:

Joe Young wrote:

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

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

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/Da...oll010702.html

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

http://christianparty.net/abortiongallup.htm


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

Was is ABC or CBS that staged the Chevy pickup truck exploding gas tank?

Neither. That was NBC.

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

You just have to be skeptical. At least there is an editorial board,
and they have to answer to the FCC.

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

"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
...

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


That was "Dateline NBC".

"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
...

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


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