Thrown out of an FBO...

Do you imagine that Jay hasn't had his share of customers with opinions?

Hee hee! We cater to pilots. Getting pilots to agree on ANYTHING is
like herding cats.

'Nuff said...?

;-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Assuming that this president's prime directive was to assure that no
more attacks on America could be carried out successfully, President
Bush has achieved his goal with 100% effectiveness.

That X happens is not evidence that Y caused X.

Jose
--
"Never trust anything that can think for itself, if you can't see where
it keeps its brain." (chapter 10 of book 3 - Harry Potter).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Unfortunately, with liberals around that won't happen.

Jay, if you are still reading these how do you like the turn of
events?

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz...........mmmm...wha...HUH ? Oh, right. THIS
thread....

:-)

Actually, Ron, although we are far afield from my original post, I DO
find it fascinating and refreshing to note that there are people out
there (like you, and Jessica, etc.) who are still willing to logically,
point-by-point refute the nonsense and hatred spewed by the "liberal"
(GOD, what a horrible *******ization of a once-wonderful word!)
Hotze/Borchardt/Drescher/Regish clan. I, for one, ran out of energy to
argue with their block-headed stubborness long ago.

I've come to the sad conclusion that it is impossible to impart what
most of us see as common sense into people who claim to understand the
logic behind the theory of evolution, yet profess to seeing nothing
wrong -- or even unusual -- about sexual practices that by themselves
would guarantee the end of the human race.

I hold out little hope for changing anyone that can bend their minds
around such illogic.

Which, by the way, isn't to say I have anything against homosexuality.
I personally don't care if you want to screw pumpkins all night, if you
do it in the privacy of your own home and far, far away from my kids.
But don't even THINK about telling anyone that it's "normal", or that
my children need to be exposed to it.

Quite frankly, I don't understand why the homosexual lobby is wasting
all of their political credibility on the same-sex marriage issue. If
they had any sense at all, they would spend their political capital on
obtaining equal rights for same-sex unions -- call them whatever you
want, except "marriage" -- and drop the politically suicidal tactic of
trying to claim that their relationships are "normal" and should be
called "marriage". No mainstream national politician can support such
a stance, and -- one state a time -- homosexuals are going to find that
their current rights have been stripped away, either through referendum
or by amendment. It's already happening.

Quite frankly, I don't think that most people care if two guys want to
claim ever-lasting love, nor would they care if they were granted all
of the rights that married couples have by law. What they DO care about
is the specious claims that these couples are somehow "married" or
"normal". It's an insult to our intelligence, and the homosexual
lobby is doing far more self-harm than good by pressing this issue to
the breaking point.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Assuming that this president's prime directive was to assure that no
more attacks on America could be carried out successfully, President
Bush has achieved his goal with 100% effectiveness.

That X happens is not evidence that Y caused X.

True. But in the absence of any other explanation, it'll have to do --
for now.

And, given that the Left has been ceaselessly saying that "invading
Iraq (Y) has done nothing but create a breeding ground for more
terrorists (Z)", we can at least conclude that "X" proves that "Z" is
false.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

mike regish wrote:

See www.whydoesgodhateamputees.com

Always nice to see people who are against something, but don't propose a
more viable alternative. Sort of like the Democrates.

If we evolved from random combination of elements, why haven't we
evolved to grow back amputated limbs? Any process that can create
intelligent life from basic elements randomly scattered throughout the
universe due to a big bang should be able to grow replacement limbs
without even breaking a sweat. Right?


Matt

Jose wrote:

Assuming that this president's prime directive was to assure that no
more attacks on America could be carried out successfully, President
Bush has achieved his goal with 100% effectiveness.


That X happens is not evidence that Y caused X.

True, however, enough correlation over time certainly can make one
wonder about a causal relationship. Look how many terrorist attacks
occurred under Clinton or were planned under Clinton and how many
occurred under Bush's watch. We obviously won't know the effectiveness
of the Bush approach for another decade or so probably. However, if we
consider than a large attack takes probably 1-3 years to plan and
execute, if the Democrats dramatically change the approach to dealing
with terrorists and we see a return of attacks after a 1-3 year lag
time, I'll certainly be willing to believe there is a connection.


Matt

Bingo. You got it! They *are* using the same logic against the western
world. We are infidels, and there are only two options: conversion or
death. Which one do you want?

For allowing the rise of the Islamofascism... If they can't take care of
their own house, we wipe them off the face of the planet...

And they might use the same logic against America for allowing the rise of
Whateverism. How about Christofascism? We better start wiping these
fundies out before somebody suitcase-nukes our cities and tries to wipe us
off the planet.

in article , Jay Honeck
at wrote on 11/13/06 6:36 PM:



Which, by the way, isn't to say I have anything against homosexuality.
I personally don't care if you want to screw pumpkins all night, if you
do it in the privacy of your own home and far, far away from my kids.
But don't even THINK about telling anyone that it's "normal", or that
my children need to be exposed to it.

How amusing to read these thoughts in a forum devoted to FLYING. God forbid
people should devote themselves to any pursuit not strictly sanctioned by
nature, eh?

I hate to break it to some folks, but human endeavor in its ENTIRETY has
been about defying nature at every turn. It's the only reason we live the
way we do.

And don't worry about the population, Jay. Even if 90% of us permanently
stopped breeding, there would still be plenty of people.

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
oups.com...
I've come to the sad conclusion that it is impossible to impart what
most of us see as common sense into people who claim to understand the
logic behind the theory of evolution, yet profess to seeing nothing
wrong -- or even unusual -- about sexual practices that by themselves
would guarantee the end of the human race.

drop the politically suicidal tactic of
trying to claim that their relationships are "normal" and should be
called "marriage".

You seem to be trying to argue that if it would end the human race for
*everyone* to have a particular status (for example, being in a gay instead
of straight relationship), then it follows that there's something
undesirable or "abonormal" about that status.

If that were true, then it would follow that it's undesirable and abnormal
to be (for example) a full-time innkeeper--because if *everyone* (or even
almost everyone) were a full-time innkeeper, there'd be no farmers, doctors,
scientists, etc., and the human race would end.

Contrary to your argument, a moment's reflection shows that the desirability
or normalcy of a particular status has *nothing to do* with the desirability
of *everyone* having that status. You're making a spectacularly naive and
silly attempt to invoke the categorical-imperative principle.

A secondary (but still fatal) inconsistency in your position is that in
fact, many gay couples do reproduce (albeit not with one another) and raise
children; yet you still call such a relationship "abnormal", and refuse to
call it a marriage; and conversely, many straight people voluntarily refrain
from ever reproducing (even having surgery to render themselves infertile),
yet you do not call them "abnormal" nor refuse to call their unions
"marriages".

--Gary

I've come to the sad conclusion that it is impossible to impart what
most of us see as common sense into people who claim to understand the
logic behind the theory of evolution, yet profess to seeing nothing
wrong -- or even unusual -- about sexual practices that by themselves
would guarantee the end of the human race.

That sentence makes no sense. By "by themselves" do you mean "if the
only kind of sex were gay sex, there's be no reproduction"?, or do you
mean "in and of themselves", as in the simple act of engaging in gay sex
will guarantee the end of the human race? If the latter, there is much
evidence to the contrary (gay sex has been around since the beginning of
history, and probably since the beginning of evolution). If the
former, then the same could be said for eating chocolate. (If the only
thing people ate was chocolate, the human race wouldn't last long
either). And eating is just as important as sex.

Therefore, I don't find your statement above to be convincing. It has a
serious error in logic. And to argue that "there's no comparison
between gay sex and eating chocolate" is to say that you really are
reaching your conclusion through reasoning other than what you just
presented.

If they had any sense at all,
they would spend their political capital on
obtaining equal rights for same-sex unions
-- call them whatever youwant, except "marriage"

You seem to be trying to give the impression that you are ok with same
sex unions (let's call them "ssunions") having the same rights as
married heterosexual couples. However, this is an illusion. So long as
private contracts (of which there are millions) have the opportunity to
use the word "marriage" to mean one thing, and ssunion to mean the other
thing (which is the whole point), then those private contracts can
easily deny benefits to ssunions that they grant to marriages, thus
defeating the impression you seem to want to give. Further, the
millions of contracts already written (such as health care contracts and
hospital visitation rights) will retain all the discrimination that
"equal ssunions" is designed to make us believe it eliminates.

Therefore, I believe you are giving lip service to one idea while
actually supporting another. Whether deliberate or not I cannot say.
But this is the reason why "Separate but equal" flies as well with gay
couples as it does for blacks.

No mainstream national politician
can support such a stance...

Perhaps not in the present atmosphere. In that case, just like in the
sixties, the aim is to change the atmosphere.

... the specious claims that these couples
are somehow "married" or "normal".

Whether they are "married" or not is a simple matter of definition.
That can be changed at the stroke of a pen.

Whether or not it is "normal" begs the question of what "normal" means.
If two percent of the population has green toes, is it normal to have
green toes? No. However, it =is= normal for two percent of the
population to have green toes.

It is also quite possible that, while green toes puts an individual at
an evolutionary disadvantage (easier to be seen by predators), having a
population where some people have green toes is an advantage to the
population (by attracting predators they also attract food), and having
a strong population is itself an advantage to all individuals
(protection from predators).

So, your reasoning above is flawed, making use of the emotional baggage
carried by the word "normal" while being very loose in its actual meaning.

Jose
--
"Never trust anything that can think for itself, if you can't see where
it keeps its brain." (chapter 10 of book 3 - Harry Potter).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.