Pilot's Political Orientation

Exactly why he is such a enigmatic example.


"Dave Stadt" wrote in
:


"Judah" wrote in message
...
"Dave Stadt" wrote in
:


"Judah" wrote in message
...
How, exactly, do the rich get richer without taking other people's
assets?

By applying themselves and earning what they accumulate. If you are
smart and work hard you win. If you are dumb and sit at home
waiting for the welfare check you lose.


Ahhh... So that's why my brilliant seventh grade science teacher is so
wealthy, and Mike Tyson, who can barely speak english, is so broke!

In fact Mike Tyson is broke. His current net worth is a couple of
thousand dollars. Tyson didn't sit home waiting for a government check
although he might well end up in that situation. If in fact the
science teacher is brilliant the opportunity to increase earnings is
readily available.

Freedom for who? And from what?

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in
hlink.net:


"Judah" wrote in message
...

What, exactly, then, do conservatives want?


Freedom.

"C J Campbell" wrote in message

Jefferson godless?

Apparently deists are thought to be godless.

By whom?

"Dave Stadt" wrote in message
. ..

"Judah" wrote in message
...
"Dave Stadt" wrote in
:


"Judah" wrote in message
...
How, exactly, do the rich get richer without taking other people's
assets?

By applying themselves and earning what they accumulate. If you are
smart and work hard you win. If you are dumb and sit at home waiting
for the welfare check you lose.


Ahhh... So that's why my brilliant seventh grade science teacher is so
wealthy, and Mike Tyson, who can barely speak english, is so broke!

In fact Mike Tyson is broke. His current net worth is a couple of
thousand
dollars. Tyson didn't sit home waiting for a government check although he
might well end up in that situation. If in fact the science teacher is
brilliant the opportunity to increase earnings is readily available.

But not as a science teacher.

Do we want good science teachers teaching our kids or is it OK to low
ambition morons doing it instead?

"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
...
darwin smith wrote:
Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

Anti-abortion IS pro-life.

Even when there is no exception to save the life of the mother?

Many conservatives have agreed to this exception. However, it isn't all
that clear as very few cases are such that the mother's life is
guaranteed to be at risk. The baby's life IS guaranteed to be at risk
in an abortion. So even with this exception, you are still guaranteeing
a death to save the possibility of a death. 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.

Execution in the name of revenge is not morally acceptable either.
Deliberately killing a person is murder and is a moral crime.

"Doug Carter" wrote in message
...
Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
"Peter Gottlieb" wrote in message
et...

And the "conservatives" are different, how?

Conservatives object to excessive government spending,
especially when it is used to force social engineering.
Brian Riedl at the Heritage Foundation notes (quoted in part):

and the money being spent in Iraq is NOT social engineering then?

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.

Bob Noel wrote:

In article , wrote:


All of which would have been done whether or not those C-182's flew
those approaches. iow - no extra costs were incurred because of
those approaches.

Well....that is true for the cost of the center building. It isn't
necessarily
true where an approach control serves what is primarily a general
aviation
airport. And, it certainly isn't true for instrument approach procedures
established for airports that have no commercial traffic (which is many,
many
more instrument approach procedures than those established for airports
with
mostly, or some, commercial operations.


How many? have you counted them?

--
Bob Noel

All you have to do is flip through the NACO books and it becomes quite
apparent. The facts are self-evident. If you want a precise count, I'll let
you do that.

The last I recall, in the now-five-year-old program for 500 GPS approaches a
year, some 70-80% of those were established (and are being established) for
airports that have no commercial operations except perhaps for a very
infrequent Part 135 arrival.

"Philip Sondericker" wrote in message
...
in article , Dave Stadt at
wrote on 4/17/04 7:11 PM:


"Philip Sondericker" wrote in message
...
in article , C J Campbell at
wrote on 4/17/04 11:37 AM:

If Jefferson is mentioned in public schools at all, it
is
to highlight the shameful and oppressive past of the white male
dictators
that established the United States. That is all most modern grade
school
kids know about Jefferson.

This must be a relatively recent develepment, because I for one can't
recall
ever being taught any such thing. You're basically just making this up,
aren't you?

You obviously have no idea what is being taught in the liberal run
education
system in this country.

"If Jefferson is mentioned in public schools at all, it is to highlight
the
shameful and oppressive past of the white male dictators that established
the United States. That is all most modern grade school kids know about
Jefferson."

Would anyone care to cite some proof of the above statement?


Head over to your local Jr/Sr high school history department and see for
yourself.........

Judah wrote:

Put it in perspective.

At MOST, the 100-hour per year pilot uses 100 hours of ATC time per year.

The Airline pilot, who flies back and forth across the country twice a
day, uses 100 hours of ATC time in about a week.

Not possible. That would grossly violate the flight-time limitations in Part
121. In any case, the airline pilot is a surrogate for the airline company
and the hundreds of paying customer using those ATC services.



If I remember correctly (as quoted by the AOPA) there are about 250,000
100-hour per year GA planes.

There are equally as many 100-hour per week Airlines.

The airline fleet is probably somewhere around 4,000 aircraft with an average
daily ultilization of 12-14 hours per day.



The only real way to fairly and equitably split the cost of the system is
to charge for the time used. It is probably not really practical to do
that for a variety of reasons. But gas consumption probably delivers a
good measure of time a plane spends in the air, and as such using the
system, it is probably a fairly good place to put the tax to cover that
cost.

You seem to be complaining that an approach controller at BDL whose
salary is mostly being paid by the 350 Airline flights per day he
sequences in should not also provide sequencing a few times a year to
Skylark nearby if they would publish a GPS approach and paint some lines
on the runway.

Hmmmmm...

And perhaps the police who are patrolling my neighborhood shouldn't help
you if you get mugged and are from out of town?

wrote in :



"Matthew S. Whiting" wrote:

The average G/A guy who flys a Cessna 182 100 hours a year doesn't
begin to pay for the system.


But he doesn't need much of the system either. He needs a few grass
runways, and a good map and compass! :-)

Matt

Well, although that may be true for you, there are lots of Cessna 182's
that make a lot of instrument approaches at airports with control
towers. Or, even instrument approaches at airports without control
towers; all supported by center equipment, controllers, FAA approach
designers, expensive flight inspections, etc., etc.