Pilot's Political Orientation

"Judah" wrote in message
...
Actually, CJ, you should go back and follow the thread a little more
closely, and maybe read it without your blinders on.

The conservative view presented was that liberals want to take other
people's assets and redistribute them. I responded that conservatives
want to take other people's assets and keep them for themselves. The
response was that conservatives don't want other people's assets, and I
disagree with that completely.

You read my statement as a bitter one of resentment. Actually, I it was a
simple plain fact of the Free Market economy.

I made no mention of stealing. The Free Market in the US requires that
people redistribute assets in order to get rich. Most people don't get
rich based solely on their hourly rate. They get rich by buying low and
selling high - real estate, stocks, antiques on a road show, or whatever.

In the free market economy, someone wins, and someone loses.

You need to sue your economics teacher.

One thing I have not seen mentioned here is that the Northwest article
specifically mentioned the airport fees (taxes) that are tacked on to most
tickets. Those cover mainly the cost of maintaining and improving the
terminal building, parking, security etc, none of which is even accessible to
GA, much less used by it.

As another observation, I think the airlines have a much better deal charging
the per passenger fee rather than paying the same amount percentage-wise we do
on fuel taxes.

--
--Ray Andraka, P.E.
President, the Andraka Consulting Group, Inc.
401/884-7930 Fax 401/884-7950
email
http://www.andraka.com

"They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little
temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-Benjamin Franklin, 1759

"Judah" wrote in message
...

I made no mention of stealing. The Free Market in the US requires that
people redistribute assets in order to get rich. Most people don't get
rich based solely on their hourly rate. They get rich by buying low and
selling high - real estate, stocks, antiques on a road show, or whatever.

In the free market economy, someone wins, and someone loses.

You really don't have a clue, do you, about economics?

"David Brooks" wrote in message
...

"C J Campbell" wrote in message
...

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


Here we have the crux of what passes for liberalism these days. Idiot.

The assumption is that if you possess something, it must have been
stolen
from somebody else. It is astounding that liberals, who claim to be
intellectuals, cannot see the blatant fallacy behind this argument.

Oh, please read the liberal economists. They understand perfectly well the
principles of investment and growth, and that any successful economy
cannot
be zero-sum.


Are there any left? Keynes (as he famously predicted) is dead. :-) To
paraphrase Milton Friedman, we are all monetarists now.

"Dan Luke" wrote in message
...
"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.
--

I have little tolerance for the religious right, either, but I don't think
the religious right is representative of conservatism. They appear to be a
hostile group of xenophobic, racist reactionaries. Frankly, they are as much
of an embarrassment to conservatives as PETA and the ELF are to the
liberals. Extremist groups like those are hotbeds for terrorism and other
criminal activity.

"Tom Sixkiller" wrote in message
...

"Dan Luke" wrote in message
...
"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.
--
Quite...just as they take the phrase "separation of church and state" as
though it's something from contemporary times rather than from the pen of
James Madison, they guy who essentially WROTE the Constitution.

Yes, but they did not make it part of the Constitution, did they? Read the
Federalist papers. There was quite a bit of debate about it, and Madison
lost.

Peter Gottlieb wrote:
"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
...

If it weren't for liberal activist judges who try to make law rather
than interpret the law, the amendment would, in fact, be superfluous.
It is simply restating the obvious, but liberal judges are unable to
understand it any other way.


Are "liberal activist judges" any worse than conservative activist judges?

Probably not, there are just more of them as society as a whole
continues to decline and standards of morality and behavior are lowered.


Isn't case law created in courts rather than by legislation, and a part of
the balance of power of the government?

That wasn't the intent behind the design of our government. The
legislature creates legislation ... could be why they call it the
legislature. :-)

The courts are only to ensure that the legislature adheres to the
constitution, they are not to "create" new law through interpretation.
They are to affirm or deny a given law as being constitutional or not,
and that is it.


Matt

Tom Sixkiller wrote:
"Dan Luke" wrote in message
...

"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.
--

Quite...just as they take the phrase "separation of church and state" as
though it's something from contemporary times rather than from the pen of
James Madison, they guy who essentially WROTE the Constitution.

If he wrote the Constitution, why didn't he include this phraseology?
Could it be that it was simply HIS opinion and not generally shared by
the group that in the end approved the wording of our Constitution?
Many contributed to the wording either through writing it with their own
hand or through the debates that edited the final wording. You better
go back and read some more history so that you learn not to take one
man's opinion as being representative of all.


Matt

"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.

"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message
...


Fiscal conservatism and a strong resistence to government redistribution
are
two consrvative sentiments libertarians share.

Absolutely. And that's a bad thing?


You are probably thinkin of left and right in European terms, where both
ends of the spectrum are socialist.


Well .. considering both ends of the spectrum wish to grow govt at an
astronomical rate .. you could be right. But I generally think in terms of
the left wishing to control my pocket book and the right wishing to control
my morals, violate my privacy, and control what goes on in my bedroom.