Leaving the community

know, has elected to deliver the country I love, and chose as my home, into
the hands of Bush and his repressive, regressive masters.


Basically, there are 4 corners of politics:

1. Conservative: restrict personal behavior; economic freedom
2. Liberal: personal freedom; restrict economic freedom
3. Classical Liberal: personal freedom; economic freedom
4. Authoritarian: restrict personal behavior; restrict economic freedom.

Since you are a liberal, you see the repressive aspects of Bush, but you
fail to see the repressive side of liberalism.

A choice between conservative vs liberal is typically a choice of what
kind of repression you want. Since both sides are for what the other is
against, there is what appears to be a great divide. Wouldn't it be
better to be a classical liberal and return to the freedoms that our
founding father's intended? There doesn't have to be a choice between
one of only two options.

Now, why did I respond to what appears to be an off topic discussion.
Politics DOES belong in the cockpit. We pilots need to be concerned
when either party attacks our freedom in the cockpit. Attempts have
been made that severly restrict GA, but a Hertz Rental truck could be
used to inflict far greater destruction. The AOPA had been outstanding
in fighting for absurd regulations.

If you are not a member of AOPA, find out what good they have
performed. Think about joining.

Peter Duniho wrote:


The FACT remains that there's a much larger chance that the poll correctly
describes the overall electorate than that it doesn't.

This statement is correct. There is a chance the poll represents the
actual fact. Depending on how accurate you want to be you can also say
the poll never correctly describes the actual fact. The poll will
always get you close, how close depends on the sample size. The same
science that tells you how close also tells you it will never be exactly
right.

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
news:vOqid.353905$MQ5.219330@attbi_s52...

It's kind of a shame, cuz she's a bright woman in many ways.

Bright? Yes, but that's a morally-neutral statement.

-cwk.

Earl Grieda wrote:


You better go back and learn what "well regulated" meant in the time
when the Constitution was written. And while you are at it, learn what
militia meant at that time as well. Hint, the meanings aren't at all
the same as the generally accepted meanings today.





Please provide a referance to back up your etymological evolution of these
terms.

Read your history for christs sake. The militia was not an organized
army like we have today, the original framers wanted no part of a United
States Army. They thought that if things got bad the US Army would
basically have a coup and take over the country. Every able bodied
adult male was considered to be the militia.

Dave Stadt wrote:



You would be hard pressed to prove that. Polls are at best one step above a
WAG.

Science proves it. But, everything has to go right for the poll to
achieve that margin of error. First you must get a represenative random
sample. This rarely happens, there's always a little error here.
Second the questions must not be skewed one way or the other. Third,
the people must tell the truth. This also never happens. They always
give the margin of error when you see a poll, this is a theoretical
number that cannot be reached because no poll will ever be truly random,
somebody always lies, or says they're someone their not, etc. One of
the pollsters on TV this week said that to get the 850+ responses for a
+-3% poll they had to call over 10,000 people. With those kinds of
problems no way can a poll be anymore than a guess.

"m pautz" wrote in message
news:lTMid.48559$HA.35856@attbi_s01...

Wouldn't it be better to be a classical liberal and return to the
freedoms that our founding father's intended? There doesn't have to be a
choice between one of only two options.


You can. Vote Libertarian.

www.lp.org

"Newps" wrote in message
...


Earl Grieda wrote:


You better go back and learn what "well regulated" meant in the time
when the Constitution was written. And while you are at it, learn
what militia meant at that time as well. Hint, the meanings aren't
at all the same as the generally accepted meanings today.





Please provide a referance to back up your etymological evolution
of these terms.

Read your history for christs sake. The militia was not an
organized army like we have today, the original framers wanted no part
of a United States Army. They thought that if things got bad the US
Army would basically have a coup and take over the country. Every
able bodied adult male was considered to be the militia.

I am not the one making the claim. It is the responsibility of the person
making the claim to prove it, or state that it is his opinion.

However, since the meaning of words do evolve then it certainly is possible
that what this person claims is true. But in that case we need to use the
definition of "Arms" as it was defined when the Bill of Rights was written.

Earl G

Earl Grieda wrote:

However, since the meaning of words do evolve then it certainly is possible
that what this person claims is true. But in that case we need to use the
definition of "Arms" as it was defined when the Bill of Rights was written.

That would be whatever weaponry is used by a modern military force.

George Patterson
If a man gets into a fight 3,000 miles away from home, he *had* to have
been looking for it.

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message news:7kDid.56196$R05.33927@attbi_s53...
Since people being paid by the government (employees, retirees, what have
you) do not generate any income in the purest sense, the "taxes" they
"pay"
are entirely illusory. Same with anyone on the dole.

A perfect example, Jay, of why your "olive branch" of yesterday is
just horse feathers, glued together with spit and bull****.

You--and many others--equate government workers with people on the
dole.

No, they are NOT the same.

However, it is nevertheless true that neither group generates real income,
creates real wealth, or pays taxes in any real sense.

Just think about it a minute, and it will make more sense. It is only the
people working OUTSIDE the government that can create wealth or pay taxes.
How can a government worker pay taxes? The money they are "paying" in
taxes is made from taxes in the first place!

Deducting taxes from government employee's paychecks is quite literally an
illusion. But it's an essential lie that keeps everyone else subdued about
the incredible rip-off we call our "tax code."

You might consider taking a few economics courses at your local community
college. These facts will be covered in the first month or so.

Well, I have a degree in economics, something more than "a few
courses". You're mixing up money, accounting, and wealth. GNP is the
sum total of all productive work in the economy over a year.
Government workers can, and some do, contribute productive work. If
it was not being done by them it would either have to do be done by
someone or we would be poorer as a country.

We track GNP by money, but the money is a just a marker, it's not real
thing. The productive work is the real thing.

Economically a government typically does things that either don't work
or aren't done well by the market system. There ARE things that don't
work in markets - any good general economics textbook will discuss
"market failures". Although some people think that markets solve
everything, they're wrong. Markets are good and solve many things -
but they're not a cure all.

I don't like some government workers, but they I don't like some store
clerks and cashiers I have to deal with at the supermarket either.
The difference is that it's easier for me to change supermarkets than
it is governments. I tried this last election and it didn't work.

-Malcolm Teas

"Peter Duniho" writes:
"Newps" wrote:

Polls are facts about statistics.

A poll isn't a fact about anything except the people who participated.

The poll itself is a fact about the statistical sample taken. Which is
exactly what I said (though apparently not in a verbose enough way for some
of you).

If you feel you have some good reason to dispite the Gallup poll results,
I'm all ears. If all you can come up with is "well, there's a 0.000000001%
chance that the poll is incorrect", then while that may be perfectly true,
it's a pretty useless statement.

The FACT remains that there's a much larger chance that the poll correctly
describes the overall electorate than that it doesn't.

My favorite statistics story: I was reading an article about
weather prediction in which NOAA claimed about 75% accuracy
in their predictions. You can say that tomorrow's weather
will be the same as today's and be about 90% accurate in most
parts of the world.