Pilot's Political Orientation

"Ash Wyllie" wrote in message
...
David Brooks opined

"C J Campbell" wrote in message
...

I have never been convicted of anything. No one saw me do it. You can't
prove it. The sheep are lying.

Does that mean it's going to rain?

No, it's cows that lie down before it rains. Dunno what sheep do.


I hear they do baad things.

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

wrote in message ...

No doubt about it, and I did not imply that. Nonetheless, a
3,000' runway at Podunk, Iowa, with two GPS approaches,
represents a signifgicant federal subsidy to the users of that
airport.


I can't find Podunk in the Iowa airport directory. Not by city or airport
name. Where is this airport? What is the dollar amount of the federal
subsidy for a 3,000' runway and two GPS approaches at this airport?

Keep looking.

I was not suggesting the feds paid for the runway. The GPS approaches cost
about $60,000 each. If you want verfication for that write to the FAA.

wrote in message ...

Keep looking.


I have concluded it does not exist.



I was not suggesting the feds paid for the runway. The
GPS approaches cost about $60,000 each. If you want
verfication for that write to the FAA.


Is that how you obtained the figure? Why not just post the relevant parts
of your letter from the FAA?

a really important plot point:

The liberals have been much more successful in redistributing the wealth,
than the conservatives have been in controlling my body.

As soon as this changes, I will vote the other way.

Everyone is being punished by the socialist system, even the poor who are
corrupted by it. I don't think the conservatives could ever come close to
being as invasive in my life as the libs. In any case, the conservatives
are in favor of me having a gun, so that tells me a little about how "in my
face" they intend to get.





"Pete" wrote in message
...
In article .net,
"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

"Pete" wrote in message
.com...

No, they want to tell you what you can and can't do in your
bedroom, and with your own body. They want to tell you who
you can marry, demand you go to church, but then you catch
them in a motel room doin' what they said not to do.

Conservatives are a bunch of lying liars.


You've bought the propaganda.

The basic difference between conservatives and liberals is their
position on
freedom. Conservatives are fer it, liberals are agin' it.

Then why the fight against gay marriage? Why the fight against abortion?
Why the fight against pr0n?

Conservatives are all for the rights of corporations to dump waste oil
into fresh water supplies, for the rights of employers to force their
workers to take horrrible physical risks and then not be compensated
when they're injured.

They're in favor of telling women what they can do with their bodies, in
favor of snooping in private bedrooms, in favor of snooping on people's
computers.

The way things are going, the only good conservative, is a dead one, and
in case you're wondering, I'm 53 years old. I see what happens when
idiots like Chimpie are in power. Or evil criminals like Reagan and
Nixon.
--
Hell yeah I'd love to make it
But I suck at playing games
I'd rather starve than fake it
For a little taste of fame

Amen

"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
...
Dave Stadt wrote:
"Judah" wrote in message
...

"Dave Stadt" wrote in
m:


"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.




And not everyone is driven by wealth creation. A lot of teachers,
scientists, etc., really are driven by other motiviations. I know that
is hard for many to believe, but it is true.


Matt

"Philip Sondericker" wrote in message
...
in article , Dan Truesdell at
wrote on 4/16/04 6:32 PM:

I don't feel guilty. I feel fortunate. And I look at the whole
picture. I've worked hard to get a degree, develop a career, and have a
comfortable lifestyle (that fortunately includes a plane). However, I
also recognize that, due to the fact I grew up in a poor family in a
poor town, you all paid for half my college education. (I paid the
other half.) Thank you! That "Robin hood Government" you speak of took
a small piece of your hard earned money and invested it in me. Guess
what? I paid more in taxes last year than I received in 4 years of
financial aid. Sounds like a good investment to me. What did you get
for your money? A very productive member of society who recognizes
that, thanks to a government that believes that an educated populous is
critical, I am able to visit a doctor when I need one. And get a
plumber when I need one. DO you think that the oft-touted "Free Market
Economy" will generate all of the necessary services we all need and
use? Not likely. Only the ones that are profitable. Think of that the
next time you visit a government educated doctor. Or the next time you
kid goes to a government funded school. Or the factory in your town is
kept from dumping toxic waste in your backyard because a government
funded EPA official keeps them from doing it. I realize that there is
certainly waste in government, but let's keep the whole picture in mind.

Wow, a bit of calm, rational sense. Thank you.


Perhaps, but what about the argument that escalating college costs are a
direct result of too much government subsidy. Why did he need college,
because he didn't get an adequate high school education? Was this due to
the effect of the liberalization of public schools?

All this post points out is that the government has gotten way too involved
in our lives without any supporting evidence that we would not be better off
without that involvement. We don't know that the author would not have been
better off without college. We do know that someone elses money went to pay
for that education.

Everyone notices how well off the lottery winner is, and doesn't notice all
the other players being a dollar poorer. That doesn't make the lottery a
free way to create wealth.

There is no free lunch!

Dude wrote:

snip


Perhaps, but what about the argument that escalating college costs are a
direct result of too much government subsidy. Why did he need college,
because he didn't get an adequate high school education? Was this due to
the effect of the liberalization of public schools?

My high school was adequate, but one does not become a Mechanical
Engineer without going to college. Many of the engineers I graduated
with had some kind of public assistance. Think about this the next time
your doctor orders a MRI to diagnose your ailment. It would be pretty
tough to do if some of us that actually design and build the things you
use everyday weren't motivated by something other than money.


All this post points out is that the government has gotten way too involved
in our lives without any supporting evidence that we would not be better off
without that involvement. We don't know that the author would not have been
better off without college.

That's not the point. This was, and is, NOT about me! That is a
selfish attitude, and one I choose not to take. When will there be a
general realization that, for all of it's faults, the government
intervention that you so quickly dismiss provides many necessary items
that WE ALL use every day. There may be no supporting argument to say
that WE are better off, but the opposite is not the case. There are
many supporting arguments indicating that WE would be worse off if there
were no government (read general public) intervention. The people that
are fond of spouting that we "should let the Free Market Economy work
(our fearless leader included) seem to forget that we have done this in
the past. And it gave rise to things like Love Canal, horrible child
labor situations, Company Stores, and Slavery. Please recognize that
this government intervention that you speak of is exactly the
intervention that brought these and many other horrific "features" of
the "Free Market Economy" to an end.

snip

--
Remove "2PLANES" to reply.

"L Smith" wrote in message
link.net...

1) Extending this argument, there is therefore no need for Bush's
proposed constitutional
amendment, since by definition there can be no same-sex marriage.


That, and the fact that marriage is not a federal issue per the US
Constitution.



2) This is indeed the traditional definition currently accepted in the
western world. It is far from a universal definition, though. Until
fairly recently Mormon's believed firmly in polygamy, and polygamy
is still a common practice in much of the world (the general
rule being that you had to be able to support the entire family if you
elected to have more than one wife). And IIRC, polyandry is an
acceptable approach in parts of Tibet and other areas where life is
considered so hard, more than one "wage earner" is required
to support a family.


I don't see how that definition necessarily excludes polygamy or polyandry.



3) Many traditions are good, but that doesn't mean they should be
unchangable. All traditions should be examined periodically to see
if they still make sense.


And proposed changes should be examined to see if they make sense. Same-sex
marriage does not make sense.



4) If we accept your definition,


It's not my definition.



then the question we need to ask is "what is your view on
same-sex civil unions?" This is, after all, what's usually being
referred to when most people are talking about "gay marriage".


Same-sex civil unions do not make sense.

"Andrew Gideon" wrote in message
online.com...

I'd love for this to be so, but the evidence claims otherwise. Why is a
conservative administration against the right of people to marry?


It isn't.



I can see their rational in the case of abortion, even if I don't
agree. But not even a single cell is harmed if a same-sex
couple marries. Why would anyone care?


Because if the meaning of marriage is altered, assuming for the sake of
argument government has that authority, then every marriage is altered.



Why, under a supposedly conservative administration, have we
American citizens held in violation of the law merely by defining them
as soldiers in a foreign army? Yes, deal with them. But deal with
them in a fashion consistent with our values...or give up the claim to
being "for freedom".


What the hell are you talking about?

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
ink.net...

then the question we need to ask is "what is your view on
same-sex civil unions?" This is, after all, what's usually being
referred to when most people are talking about "gay marriage".


Same-sex civil unions do not make sense.

Same sex civil unions are redistribution away from heterosexual women to gay
men, just the same as gay marriage. In Canada when AIDS broke out the
medical system quit treating breast canacer to keep the fags alive. If
women went for more than 6 months without threatment the Canadian
Governement would buy them a bus ticket to Vermont.