Pilot's Political Orientation

On Sat, 17 Apr 2004 21:12:52 -0400, Matt Whiting wrote:

I'm still not sure that is
a good moral position to aspire to, but at least it is better than most
abortions which are simply murder for the sake of convenience. That
isn't morally acceptable.

Good. So it is not morally acceptable by you (and many others). But how
comes you take the right to make this decision for so many others, too? You
call them murderer and morally inacceptable (maybe without knowing the
background).

In many (all?) countries in Europe, abortion is allowed (no legal action is
taken). So you put ALL those European women who abort in one basket and
call them and their doctors murderers and morally inacceptable?

#m

--
A far-reaching proposal from the FBI (...) would require all broadband
Internet providers, including cable modem and DSL companies, to rewire
their networks to support easy wiretapping by police.
http://news.com.com/2100-1028-5172948.html

Matt Whiting wrote:

wrote:

Matt Whiting wrote:


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."



I believe I said that. Let me change that to: the average G/A guy who flys a small IFR-equipped
(with IFR GPS) a 100 hours a year and often utilizies GPS instrument approach procedures at small
airports (of which there are hundreds now, if not thousands) doesn't begin to pay for the system.




That's a much different scenario. I question though if the "average G/A
guy" and the rest of the statement can really go in the same sentence.


Sure it can. The operative phrase is: "the average G/A guy who flys a small IFR-equippe (with IFR
GPS) a 100 hours a year and often utilizies GPS instrument approach procedures at small airports..."

You reduced that to "average G/A guy..." which perhaps changes the meaning.

On Sat, 17 Apr 2004 21:08:17 -0400, Matt Whiting wrote:

Abstinence is strongly supported by all pro-life groups that I'm aware
of and it is the only 100% means to prevent Debbie from getting pregnant.


yeah, they brought it on TV here in Europe. Groups where formed (mostlöy in
the bible bealt area) with "we remain virgins until our marriage" and the
like .... and they also brought the funding for supporting some weired
ideas and not funding courses for teaching contraception methods. how sick.
well; it is sick in our mindset. within the mindset of those people it was
perfectly normal.

#m

--
A far-reaching proposal from the FBI (...) would require all broadband
Internet providers, including cable modem and DSL companies, to rewire
their networks to support easy wiretapping by police.
http://news.com.com/2100-1028-5172948.html

Judah wrote:

Let's see here...

14 hours per day
x 7 days per week
=================
98 hours per week.

That's pretty damned close...


For the airplane it is. But, you said, and I quote, "The Airline pilot, who
flies back and forth across the country twice a day, uses 100 hours of ATC
time in about a week".

"Otis Winslow" wrote in message
...
I would hardly call Libertarians very conservative. While the free market
position could
lead one to think that ... the general approach of us being able to do our
own thing
as long as we don't interfere with others exercising that same freedom is
a long way
away from the ultra conservative approach. They want to control our every
action
and make our moral judgements for us.

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

The Libertarians I know .. like me .. believe
in maximum liberty and minimum government to the extent that it's
practical. The problem
with the Republicrats is one wants to control our bank account and one
wants to
control our bedroom. With Libertarians .. at this point .. having little
practical political
power we're forced to choose between the extreme right or the extreme
left.

Libertarians are the extreme right.

"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message
...

"Otis Winslow" wrote in message
.. .
Go he
http://www.libertarian.org/index2.html

The Hoover Institute is the leading libertarian think tank in America
and
it
is very conservative. In fact, outside the Hoover Institute
libertarians
have had little power in the US since FDR's Presidency began.
Libertarians
inside the Republican Party were responsible for the "balanced budget"
we
had a few years ago.

"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message
...

"C J Campbell" wrote in
message
...

So now you have 'conservatives' running around talking about
property
rights
and states' rights

Republicans have always supported States' rights, as that is the
basis
of a
republic.

(originally created to protect slavery)

Democrats wanted the 3/5 law and Republicans were not willing to go
to
war
over it and as long as libertarins could control the purse everyone
was
willing to leave things be for a while.

and protecting
large corporations while espousing populist principles.

The libertarian wing (once Federalists) of the Republican Party
insistthey
address the issues of fiscal responsibility and a small central
government,
but libertarians are out of favor now due to their isolationist
tendancies.

And you have the
'liberals' running around trying to limit free speech and press,
disarming
the public, and supporting the worst thugs and despots imaginable
in
other
countries in the name of 'diversity' and 'tolerance.'

Racism has always been the Democrats' product.

On Sun, 18 Apr 2004 00:43:17 GMT, Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

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.

I bet Jesus was more into boating. He walked over water.

#m

--
A far-reaching proposal from the FBI (...) would require all broadband
Internet providers, including cable modem and DSL companies, to rewire
their networks to support easy wiretapping by police.
http://news.com.com/2100-1028-5172948.html

"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.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

Maybe we should
also put down newborns with any physical, mental or genetic
abnormalidies.

this has been done by the nazis.

Your making my point Martin. The world was outraged by the actions of
Mengele and others in the German camps, but the number of innocent lives (of
defenseless babies) taken each year in the US and Europe makes those
atrocities pale by comparison.


It is all called murder you moron.

and back then it was legal. (not that I favour such action!)

I am glad you haven't take a liking to killing....

see? it is only a matter of definition.
sure, this is really extrem, but the point remains.

No it isn't a matter of definition...its murder!

"Martin Hotze" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 18 Apr 2004 00:43:17 GMT, Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

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.

I bet Jesus was more into boating. He walked over water.


No doubt he would have enjoyed water skiing.

"Pete" wrote in message
.com...
In article ,
"Joe Young" wrote:

"SNIP"
I am not only pro choice, I am pro-abortion, I believe there should be
a
licensing procedure to ensure prospective parents are up to the task,
physically, emotionally and financially. Until they can prove that,
they
should be chemically sterilized.

Should we also perform a mecry killing on all of our seniors when they
get
to the point the can no longer take care of themselves.

I can't speak for other, but if *I* get to the point that I "need to be
taken care of," you won't need to mercy-kill me, I'll do it myself.

Maybe we should also put down newborns with any physical, mental or
genetic abnormalidies. Surely they would be more inconvenient at
having an healthly, but unwanted baby. We kill millions of the
latter in this country each year...so given your logic, why don't we
just expand the practice a bit. Then we can ultimately expand the
practice a bit more to encompase stupidity...and your ticket will be
up.

No it's not. IMO, a fetus is not a person until it's breathing on its
own. I always am amused by men who oppose abortion, as if they know jack
**** about being pregnant.

You may find this amusing but I do not... It has nothing to do with knowing
"jack **** about being pregnant", it has everything to do with understanding
biology, reproductive physiology...you know science...

Are you suggestion that since I have never been pregnant I could not
possibly have an opinion on this matter...does that also apply to those that
are for abortion?

By the way, if you'd like to punch my ticket, you're welcome to take
your best shot.

I don't think I suggested I would like to "punch your ticket". I simply
pointed out the obvious that if stupidity were a criteria for murder, you
might need to be careful.