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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#271
|
|||
|
|||
"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message ...
"Michael 182" wrote in message news:uQWgc.161786$gA5.1908220@attbi_s03... "Dan Luke" wrote in message ... "Tarver Engineering" wrote: Another lie. I have science on my side Another lie. and no reason to lie. Then apparently it's just your nature. Try posting there again. If what you just said is the truth, you should get little or no response. I cross post to talk.origins every few months. It is a kook bin full of retards spewing 150 year old dog breeder science and an ocasional qualified biologist. The biologist usually admits that there are big problems with Darwin's "Origin of Species", but "it demonstrates how one thing might replace another". Although demonstrating a concept has value, theaching religion as science is not the way to do it. More lies. You're afraid. Dan, Look up Tarver on Google. You will find an archive troll which has been largely ineffective. There was a second archive troll, but the paradox in that one has been revealed. ineffective in what? archiving your crap. on one needs to show you for the prick you are. you do a stand up job of that yourself. |
#272
|
|||
|
|||
"Joe Young" wrote in message ... "James Robinson" wrote in message ... 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 here is a interesting survey http://www307.pair.com/ejs/plal1/surveys.htm here is another...all found with a quick google search on abortion poll... http://www.euthanasia.com/poll.html How about a poll (Zogby, etc) that hasn't got pre-loaded results. |
#273
|
|||
|
|||
"Matt Whiting" wrote in message ... Tom Sixkiller wrote: "Matt Whiting" wrote in message ... Gene Seibel wrote: Possibly, if I thought it was better. At 53 years old I've pretty well got my mind set on what I think is better. Others may not agree. Doesn't mean they are wrong. With TV, books and internet, there aren't a whole lot of ideas out there that have been kept secret. Most of what I hear is new packaging for old ideas. This has been true for at least 2000 years, at least with respect to things involving people. Technology has advanced dramatically, but people are pretty much the same as they were in Biblical times. Human nature hasn't really changed in a lot longer than 2000 years. I agree. That is why I said AT LEAST 2000 years. How about this: "At least 50,000 years"? |
#274
|
|||
|
|||
I come to this bulletin board to get info on flying, not politics.
While I know that I could skip this particular thread, I also want to know what is going on. These pages tend toward off-topic issues quicly and regularly. I know that by the time that message # 20 (usually much earlier) is posted, the whole subject is completely "OT". Don't you people know that nothing you say is going to change any minds? Everyone has his/her agenda to promote, and nothing said is is going to change anyone's mind. This from a lawyer who deals with this type of stuff every day. Please tell me why this is not a) an utter waste of time of and b) by people who apparantly have way too much time on their hands. |
#275
|
|||
|
|||
"Joe Young" wrote in message ... "Peter Gottlieb" wrote in message . net... "Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message k.net... When rights conflict, how do you strike a balance? By religious background and beliefs? Whose? By "morals?" Whose? If this were an easy question it would have been resolved long ago. One wonders why it's a question at all. Perhaps because we're a democracy rather than a dictatorship? If that were true abortion would be outlawed. 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? Thank goodness we do not have a democracy. |
#276
|
|||
|
|||
"James Robinson" wrote in message ... 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. ABC less biased.....best joke in this thread so far. |
#277
|
|||
|
|||
Don't you people know that nothing you say is going to change any
minds? Don't you know nothing you can say is going to change anyone's posting habits? |
#278
|
|||
|
|||
Don't you people know that nothing you say is going to change any
minds? I doubt that. |
#279
|
|||
|
|||
Okay, so no one mentioned ANYTHING except abortion. So does that mean that
only the pro choicers are voting liberal, and they are single issue voters? That is of course a non logical claim, but worth mentioning. Anyway... Your stance on abortion will invariably come down to valuing the life of the child over the woman's ability to remove the worlds most incredible trespassers - the unborn. Don't believe me? Pro lifers are often more anti sex than they are anti abortion. That is why they rely on the fact the woman's participation in copulation was voluntary to deny her control over her body to remove the fetus. However, her will is completely nullified in cases of rape, yet they still deny her an abortion. If you deny exceptions for rape, then you are saying that volition is not a factor. If you allow exceptions for rape, you are justifying homicide of an innocent third party. What kind of crap is that? Seriously, there is no logic in this at all unless you live in some warped world where women who willingly have sex are to be punished by pregnancy. Sounds sadistic to me. On The Other Hand... There is no denying that a fetus is a living human. The only arguments against this can all be described as "semantic claptrap." So, where does this bring us? To the point where people who cannot reach this logical conundrum without hours of banter continuously drone on, and on, and on because they KNOW they are right. You cannot take one side or the other without denying the other sides point which pretty much puts you in an extremist camp of one side or the other unless you chicken out and claim "faith". "Faith" based laws are almost universally believed to be unconstitutional, even by most christians. As for the post I am responding to- this completely fallacious line of reasoning that because I am a man, I can have no fear of the impending change in the laws against abortion. Therefore, I am supposedly wrong in my opinion. I respond - Bull! I believe that the conservatives cannot enact a prohibition of abortion without losing power in the next election. They know this, and therefore, will not try it. Its just not worth giving up the entire rest of the issues to protect that one isssue. Even if the pro-lifers were to succeed, it would quickly be switched back at the next election if not sooner. Lastly, the fact that I am a man does not exempt me from having a valid viewpoint on matters of abortion. My view is that the status quo is acceptable anyway, so stick your reactionary left wing claptrap... My idea is that if you are going to be born into slavery, you are better off not being born. If you have no right to prevent others from invading your body, you are a slave. Male pregnancy is an eventual medical possibility. Therefore, male or female, if your parent(s) have no right to abortion, you will neither. You are being born into slavery. Being unborn, the parent bearing you is the obvious choice as guardian and should be able to make this decision on your behalf, as well as their own. "Pete" wrote in message ... In article , "Dude" wrote: a really important plot point: The liberals have been much more successful in redistributing the wealth, than the conservatives have been in controlling my body. As soon as this changes, I will vote the other way. Given that you're a man, this is pretty much a non-sequitur. You can't ever have an abortion. (Nor can you be forced NOT to have one) -- Robots that make smelly farts? That doesn't make any sense! |
#280
|
|||
|
|||
Dan,
You are in the fortunate position of pointing out the obvious. Yes many of the engineers are a result of public assistance. What we cannot know is would there be less or more of them without that assistance. We also cannot know how many of them had there creativity stifled in the process of becoming engineers. Not all inventors had formal engineering training after all. You have not even approached my argument. Of course, I am in the fortunate position of having an unassailable, ivory tower sort of argument. You cannot disprove it without changing the world. Good Luck! Perhaps if you could find a controlled study? "Dan Truesdell" wrote in message ... Dude wrote: snip Perhaps, but what about the argument that escalating college costs are a direct result of too much government subsidy. Why did he need college, because he didn't get an adequate high school education? Was this due to the effect of the liberalization of public schools? My high school was adequate, but one does not become a Mechanical Engineer without going to college. Many of the engineers I graduated with had some kind of public assistance. Think about this the next time your doctor orders a MRI to diagnose your ailment. It would be pretty tough to do if some of us that actually design and build the things you use everyday weren't motivated by something other than money. All this post points out is that the government has gotten way too involved in our lives without any supporting evidence that we would not be better off without that involvement. We don't know that the author would not have been better off without college. That's not the point. This was, and is, NOT about me! That is a selfish attitude, and one I choose not to take. When will there be a general realization that, for all of it's faults, the government intervention that you so quickly dismiss provides many necessary items that WE ALL use every day. There may be no supporting argument to say that WE are better off, but the opposite is not the case. There are many supporting arguments indicating that WE would be worse off if there were no government (read general public) intervention. The people that are fond of spouting that we "should let the Free Market Economy work (our fearless leader included) seem to forget that we have done this in the past. And it gave rise to things like Love Canal, horrible child labor situations, Company Stores, and Slavery. Please recognize that this government intervention that you speak of is exactly the intervention that brought these and many other horrific "features" of the "Free Market Economy" to an end. snip -- Remove "2PLANES" to reply. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
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 |
Dover short pilots since vaccine order | Roman Bystrianyk | Naval Aviation | 0 | December 29th 04 12:47 AM |
Pilot's Political Orientation | Chicken Bone | Instrument Flight Rules | 317 | June 21st 04 06:10 PM |
[OT] USA - TSA Obstructing Armed Pilots? | No Spam! | Military Aviation | 120 | January 27th 04 10:19 AM |
[OT] USA - TSA Obstructing Armed Pilots? | No Spam! | General Aviation | 3 | December 23rd 03 08:53 PM |