Kerry is a pilot?

"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message
...


If there's poverty there, it's caused by the people that ACCEPTED
the "offer". For one thing, Mexico was impoverished long before Trotsky
was
even BORN. The basis of poverty is cultural, which accepts the ideology
that
leads to poverty.

You are mistaken. At the time Trotsky arrived in Mexico, the peso was 1
troy oz of ,.999 pure silver; while the dollar required $1.18 to be an oz
sterling. Today, even with three zeros shaved off the peso, you couldn't
get a pack of gum for a peso.


And you're confusing the value of the currency with the prosperity of the
country.

"Tom Sixkiller" wrote in message ...

I'm not so interested in authorship (argument from authority) as whether a
quote conforms to facts of reality.


Generally I'm not either. But in this particular case, the quote is
made much more interesting and given much greater credence simply
because it is attributed to a history professor (aka a very smart guy)
who wrote it about 200 years ago (thus making him somewhat
prophetic... at least in the minds of some conservatives).

So because this particular quote is so often used in this unusual way
(i.e., the smart, prophetic guy part), authorship is very relevant.

Consider this: nobody *really* cares that it was Samuel Clemens (I
think) who said "There are lies, damn lies, and then there are
statistics." They don't care because the quote conveys an interesting
idea that's fully independent of who said it. In the case of the
alleged Tytler quote, however, the fact that Tytler said it is (in my
opinion, at least) an essential part of why it's so popular.

As an aside, I was given an interesting link in another newsgroup.
This is from a FAQ at the University of Edinburgh Library (where
Tytler was a professor and they maintain a large collection of his
work). Basically it says they've searched and searched but can't find
anything like the alleged quote in their collection of Tytler's work.
I think it's pretty safe to say that Tytler is *not* responsible for
this quote. Here's the link:

http://www.lib.ed.ac.uk/faqs/parqs.shtml#Aftytler1



So if Tytler isn't the source of the quote (and I'm pretty darn sure
he isn't), suddenly it loses just about all of its credibility.

Not really; does historical FACT support the firt part of the quote?
Certainly the second part DOES NOT.

By the first part, do you mean?:

"A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as
a
permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up
until
the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous
gifts
from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always
votes
for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public
treasury,
with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to
loose
fiscal policy, (which is) always followed by a dictatorship."

If so, then I don't disagree - at least not much. This part seems
almost prima facie true. Where I take issue with the quote is when it
starts talking about the 200-year average life of the world's greatest
civilizations (the number just seems 5X-10X too low).

But whether historical fact supports this first part of the quote is a
wholly separate question. I'm not so sure it does. There haven't
been all that many democracies in history, so it's a bit premature to
claim they are always "temporary in nature" and that they will fall
apart only when the majority starts voting themselves "gifts." This
isn't why the Athenian republic failed. And I can't think of any
democracy that has failed principally for this reason. So I doubt
there's historical support for it.

-Mike P.

"Tom Sixkiller" wrote in message
...

"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message
...


If there's poverty there, it's caused by the people that ACCEPTED
the "offer". For one thing, Mexico was impoverished long before
Trotsky
was
even BORN. The basis of poverty is cultural, which accepts the
ideology
that
leads to poverty.

You are mistaken. At the time Trotsky arrived in Mexico, the peso was 1
troy oz of ,.999 pure silver; while the dollar required $1.18 to be an
oz
sterling. Today, even with three zeros shaved off the peso, you
couldn't
get a pack of gum for a peso.


And you're confusing the value of the currency with the prosperity of the
country.

If the money is no good, there is no way to acquire wealth.

"Mike Powell" wrote in message
om...
"Tom Sixkiller" wrote in message
...

I'm not so interested in authorship (argument from authority) as whether
a
quote conforms to facts of reality.


Generally I'm not either. But in this particular case, the quote is
made much more interesting and given much greater credence simply
because it is attributed to a history professor (aka a very smart guy)
who wrote it about 200 years ago (thus making him somewhat
prophetic... at least in the minds of some conservatives).

I'm not aware that those are the reasons it was given credibility. The first
time I heard it several years ago, it just had a name attached to it with no
mention of his credentials.


So because this particular quote is so often used in this unusual way
(i.e., the smart, prophetic guy part), authorship is very relevant.

Consider this: nobody *really* cares that it was Samuel Clemens (I
think) who said "There are lies, damn lies, and then there are
statistics." They don't care because the quote conveys an interesting
idea that's fully independent of who said it. In the case of the
alleged Tytler quote, however, the fact that Tytler said it is (in my
opinion, at least) an essential part of why it's so popular.

And that's my point. I have a wholeslew of quotes that go back to antiquity
and have no known author (note, too, how many are merely listed as
"Anonymous".

I doubt 1% of people know who Tyler/Tytler is.


As an aside, I was given an interesting link in another newsgroup.
This is from a FAQ at the University of Edinburgh Library (where
Tytler was a professor and they maintain a large collection of his
work). Basically it says they've searched and searched but can't find
anything like the alleged quote in their collection of Tytler's work.
I think it's pretty safe to say that Tytler is *not* responsible for
this quote. Here's the link:

http://www.lib.ed.ac.uk/faqs/parqs.shtml#Aftytler1
[snip]

But whether historical fact supports this first part of the quote is a
wholly separate question. I'm not so sure it does. There haven't
been all that many democracies in history, so it's a bit premature to
claim they are always "temporary in nature" and that they will fall
apart only when the majority starts voting themselves "gifts." This
isn't why the Athenian republic failed.

Not exactly, but Athens did get very lazy and complacent as they did have
what we'd call "collectivism".


And I can't think of any
democracy that has failed principally for this reason. So I doubt
there's historical support for it.

Rome, and a few of the quasi-democracies in Europe. They didn't necessarily
fail, but they sure stunted themselves.

Time will tell (and I thinks that's what the quote represents).

"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message
...

"Tom Sixkiller" wrote in message
...

"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message
...


If there's poverty there, it's caused by the people that ACCEPTED
the "offer". For one thing, Mexico was impoverished long before
Trotsky
was
even BORN. The basis of poverty is cultural, which accepts the
ideology
that
leads to poverty.

You are mistaken. At the time Trotsky arrived in Mexico, the peso was
1
troy oz of ,.999 pure silver; while the dollar required $1.18 to be an
oz
sterling. Today, even with three zeros shaved off the peso, you
couldn't
get a pack of gum for a peso.


And you're confusing the value of the currency with the prosperity of
the
country.

If the money is no good, there is no way to acquire wealth.

See: The USA in the 20th century, and for the inverse, Latvia, and now Japan
and China.

How come it's not an issue in 1992 and 1996 election.......Clinton was a
real dodger........

http://www.newbid.net/index.asp
"R.Hubbell" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 18:26:51 -0800 "Tarver Engineering"
wrote:


"R.Hubbell" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 15:32:15 -0800 "Tarver Engineering"

wrote:


"Pilot Bob" wrote in message
news:khYQb.117895$sv6.636439@attbi_s52...

"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message
news Not everyone. Not my a long shot. While he did seem to shirk
some
responsibilities, the record is not quite clear on exactly
what
happened.
However, he *was* a youngun. I might have done a stupid thing
or
twenty in
my younger years, too.

It is impossible to be AWOL from the National Guard, as drill
attendance was
optional.

Call it whatever you want. The fact is that, using his father's
connections,
he got placed in the National Guard to avoid the Vietnam draft and
even then
did not have the balls to meet his commitment.

There were open slots in the ANG in Texas, for anyone elidgeable.
When
GW's

Eligible in that case meant you better be an quarterback or the son of
a
rich man. Not just anyone got those slots. Everyone knew that then.
It's not been forgotten by a lot of people who had loved ones that
died
serving their country. I won't forget either.

Anyone that wanted to join the Texas ANG could, excluding felons and the
children of Kluxers. In fact, most of the draft dodgers of the day
could
have joined the Guard just by relocating to a State with open slots.

F-102 unit changed over to a new airplane, there was no way they
were
going
to pay to retrain a short timer. GW's job would have been to sit at
a
desk
doing nothing.

Well at least you acknowledge that he decided he wasn't going to serve
his
country
because he got a boring desk job. Any way you slice it he did not
fulfill
his
responsibilities to his country. That's not someone I respect.

Sure he did, but Dean dodged the draft.




And look where it got him.


R. Hubbell

In article YlZTb.171622$5V2.871493@attbi_s53, "old man"
writes:


How come it's not an issue in 1992 and 1996 election.......Clinton was a
real dodger........


Bush's service record is only an issue for those who do not remember the
context.

Vietnam was winding down, the Air Force, like the rest of the military, was in
a Reduction In Force. The F-102 was dangerous and expensive to maintain
compared to more modern fighters and was being phased out of the ANG as the
more modern aircraft became available to reserve units. At the same time,
flying billets were getting scarce even for career Air Force as they were RIFed
down to reserves.

Part timers like Bush were NOT going to be retrained for the more modern
fighters when there were already trained pilots being pushed out of the AF to
the reserves. The Texas ANG was done with Bush and they really didn't care if
he came to meetings or not.

I graduated from dental school the next year, in 1974. I was in the Doctor's
Draft, and was supposed to go to the Army for 2 years on graduation. Many of my
classmates were in ROTC and were obligated for 6 years because their education
had been paid for by the military. None of us went because the military no
longer needed as many dentists. Dentists who wanted to stay in were getting
RIFed out.

At that time, the National Guard and reserve units were being used more as a
transition from active duty to civilian life for career servicemen trying to
hang in long enough for their pensions, and those who were not going to make it
to retirement were pushed out to save space for those who needed the billets.

So, in the context of the times, there is nothing out of the ordinary or in any
way privleged in Bush's record. Rather, had he been retrained for the
replacement aircraft while officers already trained in them were getting RIFed
out, that would have been a sign of influence in action.

Don

--
Wm. Donald (Don) Tabor Jr., DDS
PP-ASEL
Chesapeake, VA - CPK, PVG

Cut the political bull crap!!!!

Where does he stand on GA?????







"Wdtabor" wrote in message
...
In article YlZTb.171622$5V2.871493@attbi_s53, "old man"
writes:


How come it's not an issue in 1992 and 1996 election.......Clinton was a
real dodger........


Bush's service record is only an issue for those who do not remember the
context.

Vietnam was winding down, the Air Force, like the rest of the military,
was in
a Reduction In Force. The F-102 was dangerous and expensive to maintain
compared to more modern fighters and was being phased out of the ANG as
the
more modern aircraft became available to reserve units. At the same time,
flying billets were getting scarce even for career Air Force as they were
RIFed
down to reserves.

Part timers like Bush were NOT going to be retrained for the more modern
fighters when there were already trained pilots being pushed out of the AF
to
the reserves. The Texas ANG was done with Bush and they really didn't care
if
he came to meetings or not.

I graduated from dental school the next year, in 1974. I was in the
Doctor's
Draft, and was supposed to go to the Army for 2 years on graduation. Many
of my
classmates were in ROTC and were obligated for 6 years because their
education
had been paid for by the military. None of us went because the military no
longer needed as many dentists. Dentists who wanted to stay in were
getting
RIFed out.

At that time, the National Guard and reserve units were being used more as
a
transition from active duty to civilian life for career servicemen trying
to
hang in long enough for their pensions, and those who were not going to
make it
to retirement were pushed out to save space for those who needed the
billets.

So, in the context of the times, there is nothing out of the ordinary or
in any
way privleged in Bush's record. Rather, had he been retrained for the
replacement aircraft while officers already trained in them were getting
RIFed
out, that would have been a sign of influence in action.

Don

--
Wm. Donald (Don) Tabor Jr., DDS
PP-ASEL
Chesapeake, VA - CPK, PVG

"Mark S Conway" wrote in message
news:YryVb.252690$xy6.1316755@attbi_s02...
Cut the political bull crap!!!!

Where does he stand on GA?????

He'll make the "flights take off and land on time".

In article ,
"Tom Sixkiller" wrote:

"Mark S Conway" wrote in message
news:YryVb.252690$xy6.1316755@attbi_s02...
Cut the political bull crap!!!!

Where does he stand on GA?????

He'll make the "flights take off and land on time".




The problem is: I have known a few pilots, in similar economic status as
Kerry, who really do not share my attitude towards public airports and
GA access/pilots' rights.

It is very important to know Sen. Kerry's position and record on such
issues as:

Conversion of military airports to public use

"Security" regulations/practices

GA access to metropolitan areas.

Equal treatment at US Customs