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
  #71  
Old April 17th 04, 10:58 PM
Dan Luke
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:
He'd also be vilified by Republicans as a godless libertine.


Jefferson godless?


He wasn't, of course. And I should have said "many Republicans," since
the influence of Bible-inerrancy believing fundamentalists has not
entirely pervaded the party.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM


  #72  
Old April 17th 04, 11:11 PM
darwin smith
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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.
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.

Rich Lemert




  #73  
Old April 17th 04, 11:26 PM
Steven P. McNicoll
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"darwin smith" wrote in message
link.net...

You've just gone a long way toward's blowing whatever credibility you
might have
with this statement.


It wasn't a statement, it was a question, and one that apparently stumped
you.



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".


Those are not abortion procedures.



While I am firmly pro-choice,


You are firmly pro-murder, for that is what abortion is at present.



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.


Anti-abortion IS pro-life.


  #75  
Old April 17th 04, 11:49 PM
Steven P. McNicoll
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Philip Sondericker" wrote in message
...

No, I think that redistributing my assets is financing the war.


What caused you to think that?


  #76  
Old April 18th 04, 12:05 AM
Philip Sondericker
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

in article . net, Steven P.
McNicoll at wrote on 4/17/04 3:49 PM:


"Philip Sondericker" wrote in message
...

No, I think that redistributing my assets is financing the war.


What caused you to think that?


Whose money are we using--the Belgian's?

  #77  
Old April 18th 04, 12:10 AM
Ray Andraka
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

I get better gas mileage in my '65 Cherokee Six than a Hummer gets on the
highway, 153 MPH at 14 GPH = 10.9 miles per gallon (statute miles). It is
also better mileage than my first car got, which was from nearly the same
time...a loaded '67 Ford LTD sedan that had a 390 cu in engine that drank 96
Octane minimum. I think LTD stood for Ford's Light Tank Division.

wrote:

On 16-Apr-2004, "Tony Cox" wrote:

I'd have expected those who chose Libertarian would be
a substantially higher proportion than the general population and the
Greens substantially lower. Pilots are a self-reliant independent bunch,
keen on driving machines whose gas consumption puts SUV's to
shame.


Taking into account that I can fly from point A to point B in a straight
line (rather than following a highway), my Arrow gets about the same fuel
efficiency (at 65% cruise) as a typical sedan. A Mooney would do even
better.

--
-Elliott Drucker


--
--Ray Andraka, P.E.
President, the Andraka Consulting Group, Inc.
401/884-7930 Fax 401/884-7950
email

http://www.andraka.com

"They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little
temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-Benjamin Franklin, 1759


  #78  
Old April 18th 04, 01:23 AM
Steven P. McNicoll
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Philip Sondericker" wrote in message
...

Whose money are we using--the Belgian's?


Did you not understand the question?


  #79  
Old April 18th 04, 01:24 AM
Steven P. McNicoll
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Ray Andraka" wrote in message
...

I get better gas mileage in my '65 Cherokee Six than a Hummer
gets on the highway, 153 MPH at 14 GPH = 10.9 miles per
gallon (statute miles).


Gee, that's something to boast about, a vehicle that gets better gas mileage
than a Hummer.


  #80  
Old April 18th 04, 01:52 AM
darwin smith
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

"darwin smith" wrote in message
hlink.net...


You've just gone a long way toward's blowing whatever credibility you
might have
with this statement.




It wasn't a statement, it was a question, and one that apparently stumped
you.

It was a question asked in such a way as to imply that the "answer"
was completely
obvious - there is no fight against gay marraige. I therefore treated
the comment as
a statement being expressed in the form of a rhetorical question.

Now, I would guess that to you the answer to your "question" is
perfectly obvious -
there is no fight against gay marriage. If this is so, then could you
please explain to me
why the Republican efforts in Massachussetts to ban same-sex unions, and
"Bush the
Lesser's" proposed constitutional amendment are not "fights against gay
marriage"/

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".




Those are not abortion procedures.




While I am firmly pro-choice,




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.





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.




Anti-abortion IS pro-life.

Even when there is no exception to save the life of the mother?

By the way, I see that you didn't bother to address my comments about
birth control,
sex education, and generally being around when Suzy really needs the
help. Let me
know when you're ready and willing to discuss the _complete_ topic of
abortion,
and have moved beyond just casting judgement on those who happen to disagree
with you.

Rich Lemert

 




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 02:26 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 05:59 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:16 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.