Pilot's Political Orientation

S Green wrote:
"Doug Carter" wrote in message
...

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

"Peter Gottlieb" wrote in message
v.net...


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?


I am shocked to see we have liberal pilots. I thought the liberals were
to busy spending their money on enviro friendly cars, saving the whales,
protesting against the death penalty, pushing gun control, worshiping
Chappaquiddick Teddy, and supporting " Hanoi John".

"Tarver Engineering" wrote:

Stop the teaching of religion as science in America's public schools.

The big lie.

I'm not going to argue this with you here, Tarver, but I will be glad to
continue the discussion over in talk.origins. Repost there and I will
respond.

1) I don't seek approval from Marx. Heck! I don't even know the guy!

2) I made no claim whatsoever. My question was, how does one create
wealth out of nothing? Labor is not nothing, but I would contend that it
also does not create wealth. If it did, the manual laborers would be the
wealthy ones.

Most significant assets in the US exist in the form of Real Property
and/or Market Holdings. Since these are relatively fixed assets, the only
way to create wealth in either of these two endeavors is to redistribute
these assets in such a way as you are left with the most money at the
end.

Doug Carter wrote in
:

Judah wrote:
"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in
link.net:

How, exactly, do the rich get richer without taking other people's
assets?

By creating wealth.

Ex Nihilo?

Perhaps you mean 'Creatio Ex Nihilo', create something out
of nothing.

If so, you claim that the value of labor = zero.

Marx would not approve.

"Dan Luke" wrote in message
...

"Tarver Engineering" wrote:

Stop the teaching of religion as science in America's public schools.

The big lie.

Yes, Darwin's "Origin of Species" is a big lie.

I'm not going to argue this with you here, Tarver, but I will be glad to
continue the discussion over in talk.origins. Repost there and I will
respond.

Talk.origins still believes "noone knows how gravity works", so you would
have to agree to a scietific venue; as opposed to me comming to your church.

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

Now, I would guess that to you the answer to your "question" is
perfectly obvious -
there is no fight against gay marriage. If this is so, then could you
please explain to me
why the Republican efforts in Massachussetts to ban same-sex unions, and
"Bush the
Lesser's" proposed constitutional amendment are not "fights against gay
marriage"/




Gay marriage is not the same as same-sex marriage.

This seems to be boiling down to an argument over semantics, where you
choose
to define terms in such a way as to give you the moral high ground.
Given that,
please define, as precisely as possible, how you define a "gay marriage"
and how
it differs from a same-sex marriage. It appears that your definition is
not in agreement
with how the general population interprets the term, and until we
understand your
definition any meaningful discussion on the topic is impossible.


Those things are not abortion procedures. We were discussing abortion
procedures.

If we were discussing abortion procedures, we would be talking about
things like D&C,
partial-birth abortions, and the like. The discussion was about
abortion, not procedures.
And any discussion of abortion that does not take into account birth
control, sex education,
and other means of providing true ___prevention____ is an imcomplete
discussion.

Rich Lemert

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.



"C J Campbell" wrote in
:


"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.

Matt Whiting wrote:

darwin smith wrote:


If you've waited until little Debbie is pregnant, you've lost your
chance to prevent an
abortion, period. All you can do now is stop it, but don't call it
prevention.


Abstinence is strongly supported by all pro-life groups that I'm aware
of and it is the only 100% means to prevent Debbie from getting pregnant.

Abstinence is 100% effective ONLY when one is 100% abstinent. While
this might be
an admirable goal to strive for, it is also completely unattainable. The
sex drive is very
powerful, and our modern culture doesn't make the task any easier. Given
this, I would
prefer to give everyone as much information and as many tools as possible.

Rich Lemert




Matt

in article , C J Campbell at
wrote on 4/18/04 8:11 AM:


"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.

He didn't say "stolen". He said "taken". I'm a businessman myself, and I
wouldn't have any money if other people didn't give me theirs.

It is astounding that liberals, who claim to be
intellectuals, cannot see the blatant fallacy behind this argument.

Here we have hysterical generalizations, hyperbole and simply not reading
something correctly.

The prisons are full of parentless children. I am not about to
support anything that is likely to make the situation even worse.

This makes no sense. Are you afraid gays will produce more "parentless
children" (as if there were such a thing) if they were permitted to marry?

You seem to have warped a connection to gays wishing to be legally married
and irresponsible heterosexuals. They have nothing to do with each other.

What exactly is it about gay people that scares you, CJ?

The
family infrastructure in this country is broken. I strongly believe
that allowing gay marriages will sweep away whatever remnants remain
of the concept of family.

Lol - what exactly do you predict will happen? This?:

"Ya know, babe, I was thinking about asking you to marry me, but since Bob
and Jim got married, I've decided I'll just impregnate you and split."

in article v1xgc.10847$hw5.8404@attbi_s53, Kevin at wrote on
4/18/04 8:20 AM:

S Green wrote:
"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?


I am shocked to see we have liberal pilots. I thought the liberals were
to busy spending their money on enviro friendly cars

A great idea. Do you have a problem with this, or would you prefer to
continue spending $2 a gallon to keep the Middle East rich?

, saving the whales,

What on earth is wrong with that?

protesting against the death penalty,

Good thing, too. Fortunately, a few governers (mostly Republican) took
notice, and they managed to save quite a few wrongly convicted people.

pushing gun control, worshiping
Chappaquiddick Teddy

I've never had much use for the Kennedys myself.

, and supporting " Hanoi John".

Assuming you mean John Kerry, I don't think he ever went to Hanoi. He spent
his tour of duty on the MeKong Delta.