![]() |
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 |
#351
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Rick,
Prove to you that God loves you? - Can't be done. But, you can prove it to yourself. "If any of you lacks wisdom (the knowledge of God and His nature), he should ask God, who gives generously to all without finding fault, and it will be given to him." All the best to you too, John |
#352
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"John T" wrote in message
ws.com... "Thomas Borchert" wrote in message And then check the constitution. VERY disturbing. Careful, now. "..Shall make no law barring..." is a far cry from acknowledging a god. You'll need to come up with a better argument than that, I'm afraid. -- John T http://tknowlogy.com/TknoFlyer ____________________ If you're going to use quotes, use them accurately: " Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. " Seems to me "no" means "no" as in "none", "not any", "zero". H. Parting out N502TB, BE58P |
#353
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Thomas Borchert wrote:
L, Equally acceptable: Propose a test that would prove any of them wrong. Nope! Science isn't about proving negatives. It just doesn't make sense. I suggest you go back and read up on the Mikkelson-Morley experiments with the speed of light. IIRC they earned the Nobel Prize by proving that "ether" (the ether of the ancients, not the chemical) didn't exist. Give me one statement in science that you cannot prove. "Life as we know it does not exist anywhere in the universe." In order to prove this statement true, you would have to examine every possible location throughout the universe and show that nowhere is there life as we know it. On the other hand, you can easily prove this statement false - just find life as we know it somewhere else. Give me one statement that doesn't hold up to observation in reality. OTOH, the religious "statements" made by the OP have no basis in observation, they cannot be proven - they are, for all we know, pure conjecture. I agree. My point is that while they can never be proven true, they can also never be proven false. Rich Lemert |
#354
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"Larry Fransson" wrote:
You misunderstand. ... You're right, Larry; I missed your point. Excuse me. -- Dan C172RG at BFM |
#355
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
In article , Chris W writes:
Please point to an example of such a concentration of power in this country where government has not been used to suppress competition in some way or there has been unlawful coercion in the marketplace. Microsoft is the best example. They create new products, and use their marketing power and money to try and drive competitors out of business, Netscape being just one of many examples of that there are even some examples where they have failed because their marketing wasn't enough to over come the worthless product they put together when the competition in this case had a far superior product. I like arguing politics, and I will even venture cautiously into religion, but I find it far to polarized a battlefield to argue the relative merit of MS and it's competitors quality. However, the market place does not function on 'supply and quality' but on supply and *demand.* Whether IE or Netscape is the better browser, the demand for IE won out. That is probably a combination of marketing and integration, you COULD buy a Ford but get a Chevy engine installed, but the added hassle of adapting it wouldn't really be worth it. IE won out over Netscape, get over it. They have told computer resellers that if they ship any computers with a competitors product pre installed then they will force that reseller to pay a much higher price for Microsoft products. In one case Microsoft had some kind of agreement with computer resellers where they had to put windows on all computers, that way those who want to run other operating systems still had to pay for windows, this in commonly refereed to as the Microsoft tax. While the government is involved and has pretended to do something about it, in reality they have done nothing. There are thousands of computer assemblers who will be happy to sell you a computer without an operating system. There always have been, but there were also some vendors who would sell you one with Windows for less than the others would sell one without an operating system. You are only harmed if you insist on doing business with those suppliers who made that deal with MS. so long as you have th choice to take your business elsewhere, you have no complaint. Then there is the music industry where a few very large corporations control everything and everyone from the DJs to song writers to artists to which songs on a new CD they are going to let us hear. In this case the government is helping them make it even worse, by taking our rights that the copyright laws give us. Were those artists forced at gunpoint to sign those contracts? If so, call the FBI, if not, then whose rights were transgressed? I'm not trying to suggest that if libertarians were in charge that it would be any better or worse, just that it is pretty bad the way it is now. Things are bad only where we have strayed from capitalism by letting the governemt interfere in some way. -- Wm. Donald (Don) Tabor Jr., DDS PP-ASEL Chesapeake, VA - CPK, PVG |
#356
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
In article , "Peter Gottlieb"
writes: "Wdtabor" wrote in message ... I suspect there are few pilots who are not libertarians at heart. The two mindsets mesh far too well for me to be the only one here. Yeah, but so what? In the present system one needs to vote against rather than vote for, and to effectively vote against, you have to "side with" the strongest alternative. The LP may very well have some good principles, but I don't see them getting anywhere serious for a very long time, if ever. This is a fight I have with my fellow LP members often. TO me, it is more important that libertarian ideas prevail, not Libertarian candidates. If that means gently persuading Republicans and even some Democrats to become more libertarian, then so be it. -- Wm. Donald (Don) Tabor Jr., DDS PP-ASEL Chesapeake, VA - CPK, PVG |
#357
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
In article .net, L Smith
writes: The central tenet of Libertarian policy is that we do not INITIATE the use of force. Most abuses masquerading as laissz-faire capitalism are actually unholy alliances of government and some individual or corporation. Aircraft certification is a good example of a group of corporations using the force of government to bar competition. And I suppose the requirements that physicians must be licensed to practice medicine is simply the AMA to do the same thing? Meanwhile, the bar exam is just another intrusion into paradise to fatten lawyer's wallets? And I guess the professional engineers exam is another way the "good old boys club" is maintained? Heaven forbid that any of these might require the applicant to demonstrate competence in the subject. How much less expensive would GA aircraft be if the government played no part in certification? Let anyone build an airplane and put it on the market. Let the AOPA, or a consortium of aircraft insurers, do the rating and let the individual purchaser assume the risks if he chooses the unrated airplane. Why stop there? Why should the purchaser even have to demonstrate competence in his ability to control that aircraft? After all, if he's willing to assume the risk, what business is it of mine? It's just a thought, but it seems to me that whether or not your 'hero' chooses to buy an unrated plane, and whether or not he chooses to become competent in the operation of that aircraft, is VERY MUCH MY BUSINESS! That guy is going to go buzzing around over my head, and when (not if, but when) he gets his ass into trouble, chances are he's going to try to take me with him. So if you don't mind, I'm going to continue to insist that someone make sure that that plane is airworthy, and that pilot is competent. I'm also going to insist that the people who make those decisions are competent to do so, so that I don't have to become an expert in everything just to protect my skin. The fallacy here is that you assume because the private sector is NOT doing something now, it still would not if the government were not in the way. I am a dentist, licensed by the state. But if the state stayed out of it, I would still need professional liability insurance. It would be in the insurance company's best interest to only insure competent dentists, so they would check my credentials and my record before insuring me. YOu need only check to see if i have insurance to know if I am qualified, so what purpose does the license really serve? The insurer might still insure the quack, but at a much higher rate, raising his costs sufficiently that he could not compete with me, so the marketplace would cull the quacks. Anyone so foolish as to go to an uninsured dentist to get a cheaper price (and they would have to be cheaper to compete with insured dentists) gets what they pay for. No license, no government interference, but no loss to the consumer, as it is just as easy to see if I am insured as it is to see if I am licensed. The same thing already applies to airplanes. Try to buy a high performance airplane with a bank loan. They will require insurance for the loan. The insurer's requirements for time in type, annual experience and recurrent training are already in excess of what the FAA requires. Just get the heavy hand of the government out of the way, and the free market will take care of things better, chewaper, and without trampling our liberty. -- Wm. Donald (Don) Tabor Jr., DDS PP-ASEL Chesapeake, VA - CPK, PVG |
#358
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Just get the heavy hand of the government out of the way, and the free market will take care of things better, chewaper, and without trampling our liberty. Hey Don, do you think we should have gone into Iraq? |
#359
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Also, while many try and use the poor argument you described to "convert"
people, I think anyone that really understands scripture, Who claims to "really understand scripture"? I have some questions for that person. |
#360
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
John,
You'll need to come up with a better argument than that, I'm afraid. Seems I don't. See H. Adams Stevens' post. -- Thomas Borchert (EDDH) |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
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 |
Dover short pilots since vaccine order | Roman Bystrianyk | Naval Aviation | 0 | December 29th 04 12:47 AM |
[OT] USA - TSA Obstructing Armed Pilots? | No Spam! | Military Aviation | 120 | January 27th 04 10:19 AM |
[OT] USA - TSA Obstructing Armed Pilots? | No Spam! | General Aviation | 3 | December 23rd 03 08:53 PM |
AOPA Stall/Spin Study -- Stowell's Review (8,000 words) | Rich Stowell | Piloting | 25 | September 11th 03 01:27 PM |