Thrown out of an FBO...

Thank you for confirming that you are "progressive." Lol!

mike regish wrote:

Yep.

mike

"Jessica Taylor" wrote in message
...
mike regish wrote:

I'd say he's lost potentially many. I know I wouldn't waste my money
there.

Yeah I could tell by your comments that you are too intolerant of someone
who
has other views.

Peter Duniho wrote:


No. To support a blanket generalization, one needs to survey the entire
population.



One needs to do no such thing. Not even remotely close. You can
accurately make a blanket generalization of 300 million people with a
sample of less than 1000.

"Jessica Taylor" wrote in message
...
Except he wasn't the one who said "all pilots" or "never" in the context
of
charter pilots or their pay. You were. Actually the words used by
Jay/Mary
included "some." Go back to sleep.

You might try waking up before you jump in. It's bad enough being a
latecomer to the party, but you ought to at least make an effort to
comprehend what the discussion is about first.

The word "some" was never used in either of the statements to which I'm
referring. I never said Jay used the words "all" or "never". What I said
is that his statement clearly implied that.

"Jessica Taylor" wrote in message
...
If you had ever studied statistics, you would know that is not true. That
is
why sample sizes are less than population sizes, and how confidence levels
are relevant.

I have studied statistics. Statistics are only relevant if you are trying
to make a statement about some proportion of a population. A blanket
generalization is necessarily about 100% of the population, and the only way
to actually *prove* something about 100% of the population is to survey the
entire population. Statistics has nothing to do with it.

"Jessica Taylor" wrote in message
...
The reaction of "some" people might be the same. Others might be
different.

What "might" be is irrelevant. Jay specifically wrote that he posted
because of the reactions he knew *would* happen. Not those that he thought
*might* happen.

mike regish wrote:
Used to be, I could talk to anybody-even a republican.

Since Bush Jr., as soon as sombody declares themselves a republican, the
conversation's over. That's one thing I really thank Bush Jr. for. He's made
it crystal clear what his party's about.

No, he's just made it easy to define the Republican party the way you
want it to appear and have a reason to rationalize doing so. George
Bush didn't magically change all Republicans, or even the party, all by
himself in the span of 6 years.

Are you really this naive in real life or do you just play being naive
on the internet? :-)

Matt

"Jessica Taylor" wrote in message
...
Nice troll, Peter. Some of us enjoy Jay's stories more than your
ad-hominen
attacks about your self-proclaimed 'personality defects.'

Actually, if you'd been paying attention, you'd have noticed that it was Jay
who proclaimed that particular personality defect. It was self-admitted on
his part.

Gary Drescher wrote:

"Jessica Taylor" wrote in message
...
Gary Drescher wrote:
That would be inappropriate, for the same reason that it would be wrong
to
launch a referendum on whether interracial couples should be prohibited
from
marrying, or whether Jews should be required to wear yellow stars.

Democracy is not the same as absolute tyranny of the majority. In a
democracy, equality before the law enjoys constitutional protections that
cannot be overridden by a majority vote.

(In addition to being inappropriate, a referendum on the issue would not
change the law: a solid majority of Massachusetts citizens and
legislators
support same-sex marriage rights.)

Then why are they so afraid of following the constitutional process?

Why do you assume the reason is fear, when I just articulated (and you did
not rebut) an alternative reason?

First, the convention was conveniently scheduled AFTER an election, to mitigate
fear of voters.
Are you sure that the million dollars the gay lobby spent on the legislature has
nothing to do with them trampling the process? I'm sure not.



If this is truly a right, and not an activist court's proclamations, why
not make it
legimately so by the voice of the people?

First, it is already a right in Massachusetts by a legitimate process,
namely the judicial enforcement of constitutional (in this case, the state
constitution) guarantees of equality. There is a reason that the judicial
branch is part of the checks and balances of our system of government. It
does not lose legitimacy just because you disagree with a particular
decision.

It was a decision by a very politically motivated activist court. Do not forget
that Ms. Marshall offered the decision as a quid-pro-quo for getting nominated
to the Court. A quid pro quo is not "checks and balances" and I do not believe
it is "legitimate."


Second, as I mentioned, democracy is distinct from tyranny of the majority.
Democracy includes protection of equality before the law even if the
majority would like to abridge that equality. Would you consider it
appropriate to hold a referendum on whether to require Jews to wear yellow
stars, if thousands of people signed a petition to amend the constitution
accordingly?

No because, a petition alone does not change a constitution. It is just a part
of the process, and those who participate deserve to have the process followed,
not prevented.

Please understand that the legislature didn't act for gay marriage, their action
was only to prevent the constitutional due process.

Would you object if legislators used lawful parliamentary
maneuvering to prevent *that* amendment from being put to a popular vote?

I believe that the Constitutional process should actually be followed instead of
trampled on. I believe that the Constitution exists for the guidance of the
people and their government and is not just a doormat to be walked on all over.
If the legislators do not want an amdendment they can vote against it, instead
of disenfranchising people who participate in the Constitutional process.

So if another Court says that same sexes cannot marry, that would be true
democracy too, right?

mike regish wrote:

I love it when the most irrational always claim to be the most rational.

mike

"Jessica Taylor" wrote in message
...

Right. When you know that there is no *rational* explanation to
justifiy yourself, it's real simple to just call someone a bigot,
racist, -phobe, whatever.


And of course the most irrational is the one who like to spew out the
bigotry/racist claims.

mike regish wrote:

I think he meant...

Hmmm... where've I heard that before...

mike

"Jessica Taylor" wrote in message
...

I think he meant liberal policies and their effects, not meeting all
liberal
people.

Not sure, where have you heard that before?