Pilot's Political Orientation

"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message
...

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


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

L Smith wrote:
Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

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


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




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

1) Extending this argument, there is therefore no need for Bush's
proposed constitutional
amendment, since by definition there can be no same-sex marriage.

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

Matt

"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
...

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

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

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

wrote in message
...

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

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

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

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

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

-- David Brooks

"Teacherjh" wrote in message
...
Only the ones that are profitable.

Well, in your post you posited that you were a profitable investment (by
the
government). I think the distnictino you are trying to make is long term
vs
short term profits. The government (in your case) reaped a long term
profit.
But the payoff time was many years, too many for most corporations to care
about.

That is precisely the point he was making, and many others of us try to
make.

-- David Brooks

"Otis Winslow" wrote in message
...

"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message
...

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


Kindly site some Libertarian positions that would indicate a far right
leaning.

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

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

You know the latter is extremism to the American left.

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

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

What am I missing here?

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

"C J Campbell" wrote in message
...

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

-- David Brooks

"Dave Stadt" wrote in message
m...

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

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

-- David Brooks

"Dan Luke" wrote in message
...
"C J Campbell" wrote:

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

I certainly would never claim Jefferson was godless. Rather, my point
was that he would not pass the test for religious correctness of the
religious right, whose political agenda is to enlist government in
proselytizing their views.
--
Quite...just as they take the phrase "separation of church and state" as
though it's something from contemporary times rather than from the pen of
James Madison, they guy who essentially WROTE the Constitution.

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

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

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

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

-- David Brooks