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 » Instrument Flight Rules
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Pilot's Political Orientation



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old April 17th 04, 09:09 PM
Steven P. McNicoll
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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.


  #52  
Old April 17th 04, 09:10 PM
Steven P. McNicoll
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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?


  #53  
Old April 17th 04, 09:13 PM
Doug Carter
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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 Medica $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.
  #54  
Old April 17th 04, 09:18 PM
Steven P. McNicoll
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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.


  #55  
Old April 17th 04, 09:21 PM
Steven P. McNicoll
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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.


  #57  
Old April 17th 04, 09:38 PM
C J Campbell
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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.


  #58  
Old April 17th 04, 09:48 PM
Steven P. McNicoll
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


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.


  #59  
Old April 17th 04, 09:55 PM
Steven P. McNicoll
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


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.


  #60  
Old April 17th 04, 10:13 PM
Steven P. McNicoll
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


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.


 




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
Juan Jiminez is a liar and a fraud (was: Zoom fables on ANN ChuckSlusarczyk Home Built 105 October 8th 04 12:38 AM
Bush Pilots Fly-In. South Africa. Bush Air Home Built 0 May 25th 04 06:18 AM
AOPA Sells-Out California Pilots in Military Airspace Grab? Larry Dighera Instrument Flight Rules 12 April 26th 04 06:12 PM
Photographer seeking 2 pilots / warbirds for photo shoot Wings Of Fury Aerobatics 0 February 26th 04 06:59 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:53 AM.


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