Pilot's Political Orientation

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

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

Jesus was a liberal.


Then why do liberals hate him? Why don't liberals espouse the principals
that Jesus taught?



In fact, we do, mostly. We just deny that he's a particularly
authoritative source, and arrive at many of the same principles from
other directions.

Now, if the *Christians* could just get together around those
principles, we might have something.

Congratulations! Now we can argue unproductively about both politics
and religion
in the same thread.


I am certain, however, that Jesus did slips with flaps. While programming in
FORTH. On a Windows PC.

"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.

In article ,
wrote:

Jesus was a liberal.

well ... but he is dead.

was

--
Bob Noel

"C J Campbell" wrote in message
...

I am certain, however, that Jesus did slips with flaps.
While programming in FORTH. On a Windows PC.


To bring a bit of piloting back into this discussion, Jesus handled a plane
well.

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

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

"Martin Hotze" wrote in message
.. .


How about a fight FOR gay marriage?




No need. Gays marry.

I take it from this that you have no problem with same-sex marriages.
Good. Now maybe
we can get down to the real issue - that gay's don't automatically
receive the same rights
granted to conventional couples; ie the same inheritence rights, the
same rights of legal
guardianship, and the like.

Rich Lemert

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

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.


There isn't. Gays marry regularly and have done so for quite some time.



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"/


Gay marriage is not the same as same-sex marriage.



I disagree, obviously, but as I say below I can understand your view.


All abortion procedures performed today cause the deliberate death of the
child. That is murder by any reasonable definition.



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.


Those things are not abortion procedures. We were discussing abortion
procedures.

wrote:

"Matthew S. Whiting" wrote:


wrote:

"Matthew S. Whiting" wrote:



Yes, I did that for years when I owned my 182, the the comment said the
"average" G/A guy. The average G/A pilot doesn't fly IFR very often at all.

Matt


If that's the case, why does AOPA continue to push so hard for all those GPS approaches
to small airports?



Because they support all GA aviation, not just the average 182 pilot.

Matt


Earlier you said "average G/A" pilot, now you're saying "average 182 pilot." So, does that
mean that G/A, overall, needs all those small airport GPS approaches?



I was following the comment that was in an earlier message in this
thread, that I think you wrote, that said "The average G/A guy who flys
a Cessna 182 100 hours a year doesn't begin to pay for the system."

Matt

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

I take it from this that you have no problem with same-sex marriages.


Well, since same sex marriage does not exist, no, I have no problem with it.



Good. Now maybe
we can get down to the real issue - that gay's don't automatically
receive the same rights
granted to conventional couples; ie the same inheritence rights, the
same rights of legal
guardianship, and the like.


Gays have exactly the same rights as conventional couples.