Bible-beater pilots

You missed my point - I'm not saying God will give you the answer to
everything you don't understand - I said that God will reveal His nature
to
you - that is the essence of real wisdom.

I have been hearing that one for over 50 years but have never experienced
it
nor have I ever met anyone who has. Could you provide real life examples
from average Joe type folks. Zealots need not apply.

Yes, please. I "second" Dave's request!
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

On Mon, 24 Nov 2003 22:43:49 GMT, "Dave Stadt"
wrote:

I have been hearing that one for over 50 years but have never experienced it
nor have I ever met anyone who has. Could you provide real life examples
from average Joe type folks. Zealots need not apply.

No point to it, if "average Joe" is defined as someone who has not had
a religious experience, and "zealot" defined as someone who has.

I can't be sure that sharing real life examples will just be
disrespectfully slapped down, so I think anyone with something that
precious is probably smart enough to abstain.

Rob, abstaining

--
[You] don't make your kids P.C.-proof by keeping them
ignorant, you do it by helping them learn how to
educate themselves.

-- Orson Scott Card

If you are expecting me to advocate structuring our government to accomodate
the stupid, we are going to disagree.


Sometimes not accomodating the stupid leaves the stupid in control, and then we
are all worse off.

Jose

--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

"Wdtabor" wrote in message
...
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.

That is a reasonable approach under the circumstances. At least you are
moving things in the right direction. Perhaps some of their ideas are
overly simplistic and/or naive but definitely a good start.

"Wdtabor" wrote in message
...
There are many more who have a basic libertarian viewpoint in economic
issues,
but they are big government advocates when it comes to controling
morality.
They need to be made to understand that you cannot pick an choose your
freedoms. You cannot have economic freedom and property rights without
also
having sexual and lifestyle freedom. Once they learn to trust their fellow
citizens to make their own personal choices, they can then better persuade
them
to embrace economic freedom.

The problem may also be related to their ties to the Church. Since this
relationship brings them votes - in many cases enough to decide elections -
it will be hard to wean them from this.

Then there is the matter of fiscal responsibility, which everyone in
Washington seems to have abandoned.

With Dems, it is another matter. Most of them are simply socialists and
collectivists and are beyond redemption. But some are in the Dem party
based on
some single issue where they feel the GOP threatens them. I have had great
success in recruiting Libertarians from the Gay and Lesbian business
community
in the artsy Ghent section of Norfolk. They were economic libertarians all
along, they just fled to the Dem party because it was seen as more
permissive
of their lifestyle than the GOP. Once they understand that they don't need
permission if they have freedom, they are converted.

I believe many more than you suspect fall into this category. And, in this
area, there are a good many "Republicans" who got fed up with a single issue
in the Democratic camp. What I am saying is that there are a lot of people
close to the fence in both parties.

H. Adam Stevens opined

"John T" wrote in message
ews.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".

An established religion has a specific meaning. It means that to be in
parlement or congress or in some cases to own property one must be a member of
the national -established- religion. Like Islam in Saudi Arabia. Or the CofE
in 18th century England.

It means far less than the ACLU claims these days.



-ash
for assistance dial MYCROFTXXX

Rob, abstaining wrote:
===========
No point to it, if "average Joe" is defined as someone who has not had
a religious experience, and "zealot" defined as someone who has.

I can't be sure that sharing real life examples will just be
disrespectfully slapped down, so I think anyone with something that
precious is probably smart enough to abstain.

=============

Me too - I'm done!

Matthew 7:6

G.R. Patterson III opined

Wdtabor wrote:

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.

Let's see if I understand you correctly. Your theory is that, if enough
people vote Libertarian, the other candidates will start to adopt some of the
LP views in an attempt to siphon off some of those votes?

I would like to be able to agree, but I think that Dems and Reps would simply
be afraid of losing votes they already have and afraid of losing the support
of the main party.

The Progressive Party never won an election in the 20s and 30s, but their
policies were adopted by the Dems. I think it was in Oregon in '02 that the
Repub lost by less than what the LP canadsate got.

In any case, a vote is never "wasted" if you vote for the candidate you
prefer.

George Patterson
A man who carries a cat by the tail learns something that can be learned
no other way.


-ash
for assistance dial MYCROFTXXX

On Mon, 24 Nov 2003 09:39:54 -0500, John Harlow wrote:

of the letter of the constitution. I do not want to see ANY religious
references on government issued documents; their presence is quite
presumptions and offensive.

This reminds me of the people who buy a house next to an airport and then
cry about the planes.

The same solution exists in both cases.

**********Me too - I'm done!

**********Matthew 7:6


Thank God!