Thrown out of an FBO...

mike regish wrote:

Ok. You win.

mike

"Jessica Taylor" wrote in message
...

That would be hard to do when there is nothing to google for. You made
the
statement, you cannot support it with facts, and your only defense is to
tell
someone else to try supporting your statement.


Win what? I was just pointing out who absurd your claims are.

mike regish wrote:

Look in the mirror.

mike

"Jessica Taylor" wrote in message
...
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.

Apparently what his party's about is getting you to show your true colors:
such
powerful narrow-minded intolerance for others that have other points of
view
that you cannot even communicate.

Pot, kettle, black. You preach tolerance and then accuse others of bigotry.
You make unfounded accusations and then when you are called on it, you just duck
and say to go search something to prove what *you* claimed. You say that you
are "progressive" but then admit that you are so intolerant that you cannot even
talk to someone who has other views than your own narrow mindset.

mike regish wrote:

I know. He just exposed them. They've always been like that. They just hid
it better.
mike

"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
...

George Bush didn't magically change all Republicans, or even the party,
all by himself in the span of 6 years.

Exposed what? What are you talking about? "Been like 'that'" --what
stereotype are you trying to make?

Jessica Taylor wrote in
:

Judah wrote:

(Ron Lee) wrote in news:45551f12.7993328
@news.pcisys.net:

Judah wrote:

(Ron Lee) wrote in news:4554e3a0.648968
:

No, it just means that many liberals are hypocrites in addition to
doing things (programs like welfare) that ruin lives and result in
the deaths of innocent Americans.

But liberals can't see what their failures have done.

Have you sampled a thousand random liberals to come to this
conclusion?

Nope. I judge them by what they have done and continue to do.

You mean you have met ALL liberals?

Wow, I don't remember meeting you.

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

It doesn't matter what he meant.

He's all ****ed off at Jay for making a generalization about charter
pilots, and in the same breadth he does the same about liberals.

Doesn't that seem strangely ironic?

"Jessica Taylor" wrote in message
...
Gary Drescher wrote:

"Jessica Taylor" wrote in message
...
I believe that the Constitutional process should actually be followed
instead of
trampled on.

The constitution is being followed. Adjourning the constitutional
convention
was lawfully accomplished by a vote of the legislature.

As lawful as putting a supreme court justice in the Court when she already
declared what she would do as a quid-pro-quo.

Would you care to explain what you're referring to?

Parliamentary
maneuvering has always been a routine part of the constitutional process.

You are using bad behavior to justify more bad behavior.

You have not explained why such maneuvers are necessarily bad behavior. We
could abolish vote-suppressing maneuvers (such as filibusters) if we wanted
to; we could even have a government by plebiscite rather than by legislation
and judicial rulings if we wanted to. There are sound reasons not to want
to, and that's reflected in the structure of government that we, as a
people, have chosen to establish.

If that it is true, then there surely there is no harm in following the
constitutional process and allowing people who petition the government
under the
proper means to have their voice heard.

On the contrary, there is grave harm in holding the referendum, even if it
is defeated, as I have already explained. For similar reasons, it would be
gravely harmful to hold a referendum that would require Jews to wear yellow
stars, or that would prohibit interracial couples from marrying. It is
gravely harmful to expose people to the threat of such a repeal of basic
rights, even if the threat can be defeated. Any such referendum should be
opposed at *every procedural step* by lawful political and parliamentary
means; the opposition should not wait for the final vote.

You pointed out that minorities in Massachusetts are not entitled to
have their voices heard.

No, I did not.

By the way courts in other states, and direct true democracy via
referendums
have been opposed to gay marriage, so using your own logic, that is true
justice as well. The difference, in a true democracy, representative or
not,
there is debate. The gay lobby in Massachusetts is opposed to having a
debate.

That's preposterous. There has been extensive debate for the past few years
in the legislature, in the print media, on the internet, in the streets, and
in all manner of public and private venues. Opponents of equal marriage
rights in Massachusetts have an unfettered right to express their opinion,
which has in fact been widely heard, and has been rejected by the majority
of the public here and by all three branches of state government.

Getting to hold a binding referendum to amend the state constitution to
repeal a crucial facet of legal equality for a specified minority is not the
same as "having your voice heard". Your conflation of the two is a wild and
desperate misrepresentation.

--Gary

"Jessica Taylor" wrote in message
...
Not true. The very foundation of Statistics is infering facts about an
entire
population through the use of a much smaller representative sample.

The "facts" that one infers describe a known *portion* of the population.
You cannot prove anything about 100% of a population with statistics. It is
impossible.

Not true. We can prove that a medicine is effective at treating a malady
without testing its effectiveness on 100% of its population.

You cannot use statistics to prove that a medicine will be effective on 100%
of the population.

We can prove that
chronic smokers have a higher risk of bladder and lung cancers than their
peers
who have never smoked without needing to find the entire populations of
smokers
and non smokers.

The very term "risk" precludes an absolute statement about 100% of the
population. That's why statistics can be used to describe risk. You can
use statistics to prove "risk", but you cannot use statistics to prove
actual outcomes. In this example, you cannot use statistics to prove that
100% of chronic smokers WILL have bladder and lung cancers. The best you
can do is prove that it is likely a certain percentage of them will.

Those are two different things. If you fail to comprehend that, you have no
idea what statistics actually is.

Statistics has nothing to do with it.

Not true but then again, I don't believe that the original poster said
100%.

Any blanket generalization is necessarily applied to the entire population.
That's why blanket generalizations are so offensive in the first place.

I'm not surprised you're having trouble understanding this. You're a woman.
Those people are the least mathematically inclined around!

Pete

mike regish wrote:

I know. He just exposed them. They've always been like that. They just hid
it better.
mike

"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
...


George Bush didn't magically change all Republicans, or even the party,
all by himself in the span of 6 years.

Matt




I'm sure some have always been that way just as some liberals have
always been like you. Thankfully, in both camps it is a minority
population.

Matt

"Jessica Taylor" wrote in message
...
Actually he gave two reasons for this post. I believe the first reason
was to
share the experience, which he thought was pretty unbelievable. The
secondary
reason was because it was fun to watch the reactions from other posters
who are
predictable, such as yourself. There was not "would" involved.

Wow...having trouble with the English language too?

First of all, the presence of any other reason is irrelevant. If trolling
was ANY reason for posting according to Jay, then he's trolling. Having
other reasons doesn't take away from the desire to troll.

Secondly, the word "would" is an English language construct to describe a
future outcome. Given that Jay's reasons (both of them) related to his
desire for a future outcome, it is simply *absurd* for you to claim that
"there was no 'would' involved" (even if that were a grammatically correct
phrase).

Pete

Jessica Taylor wrote:

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.

I think I am in love. Yea Jessica.

Ron Lee

"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.

And yet she is correct.

Ron Lee