Pilot's Political Orientation

"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.

"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.

"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"?

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.

"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.

"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.

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?

Don't you people know that nothing you say is going to change any
minds?

I doubt that.

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!

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.