If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#111
|
|||
|
|||
S Green wrote:
"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. I agree, which is why only the government should have such authority, not the individuals who were wronged. That latter would be revenge, the former is not. Deliberately killing a person is murder and is a moral crime. Sorry, but killing and murder aren't the same. Killing in defense of one's own life is not murder and is moral. Matt |
#112
|
|||
|
|||
|
#114
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#115
|
|||
|
|||
I would hardly call Libertarians very conservative. While the free market
position could lead one to think that ... the general approach of us being able to do our own thing as long as we don't interfere with others exercising that same freedom is a long way away from the ultra conservative approach. They want to control our every action and make our moral judgements for us. The Libertarians I know .. like me .. believe in maximum liberty and minimum government to the extent that it's practical. The problem with the Republicrats is one wants to control our bank account and one wants to control our bedroom. With Libertarians .. at this point .. having little practical political power we're forced to choose between the extreme right or the extreme left. http://www.libertarian.org/policy.html "Tarver Engineering" wrote in message ... "Otis Winslow" wrote in message .. . Go he http://www.libertarian.org/index2.html The Hoover Institute is the leading libertarian think tank in America and it is very conservative. In fact, outside the Hoover Institute libertarians have had little power in the US since FDR's Presidency began. Libertarians inside the Republican Party were responsible for the "balanced budget" we had a few years ago. "Tarver Engineering" wrote in message ... "C J Campbell" wrote in message ... So now you have 'conservatives' running around talking about property rights and states' rights Republicans have always supported States' rights, as that is the basis of a republic. (originally created to protect slavery) Democrats wanted the 3/5 law and Republicans were not willing to go to war over it and as long as libertarins could control the purse everyone was willing to leave things be for a while. and protecting large corporations while espousing populist principles. The libertarian wing (once Federalists) of the Republican Party insistthey address the issues of fiscal responsibility and a small central government, but libertarians are out of favor now due to their isolationist tendancies. And you have the 'liberals' running around trying to limit free speech and press, disarming the public, and supporting the worst thugs and despots imaginable in other countries in the name of 'diversity' and 'tolerance.' Racism has always been the Democrats' product. |
#116
|
|||
|
|||
|
#117
|
|||
|
|||
"S Green" wrote in message ... "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. There are teaching jobs available that pay extremely well. The opportunity is available. Do we want good science teachers teaching our kids or is it OK to low ambition morons doing it instead? I have no idea what you are talking about. |
#118
|
|||
|
|||
S Green wrote:
"Doug Carter" wrote in message ... Conservatives object to excessive government spending, especially when it is used to force social engineering. and the money being spent in Iraq is NOT social engineering then? The Iraq war is part of a long belated response to world wide terrorism. Your inference that establishing conditions that give peoples a chance to escape from dictatorships is 'social engineering' is valid and I stand corrected. I should have said that "conservatives object to excessive government spending, especially when it is used to increase dependence on welfare or inappropriately create monopolies that displace free enterprise." |
#119
|
|||
|
|||
"Chicken Bone" wrote in message news.com... "C J Campbell" wrote in message Jefferson godless? Apparently deists are thought to be godless. By whom? 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. |
#120
|
|||
|
|||
Matt Whiting wrote: wrote: 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. That's a much different scenario. I question though if the "average G/A guy" and the rest of the statement can really go in the same sentence. Sure it can. The operative phrase is: "the average G/A guy who flys a small IFR-equippe (with IFR GPS) a 100 hours a year and often utilizies GPS instrument approach procedures at small airports..." You reduced that to "average G/A guy..." which perhaps changes the meaning. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
AOPA Stall/Spin Study -- Stowell's Review (8,000 words) | Rich Stowell | Aerobatics | 28 | January 2nd 09 02:26 PM |
Juan Jiminez is a liar and a fraud (was: Zoom fables on ANN | ChuckSlusarczyk | Home Built | 105 | October 8th 04 12:38 AM |
Bush Pilots Fly-In. South Africa. | Bush Air | Home Built | 0 | May 25th 04 06:18 AM |
AOPA Sells-Out California Pilots in Military Airspace Grab? | Larry Dighera | Instrument Flight Rules | 12 | April 26th 04 06:12 PM |
Photographer seeking 2 pilots / warbirds for photo shoot | Wings Of Fury | Aerobatics | 0 | February 26th 04 05:59 PM |