Pilot's Political Orientation

"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.

On Sat, 17 Apr 2004 11:34:05 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote:


"Pete" wrote in message
t.com...

Conservatives are a bunch of lying liars.

You've bought the propaganda.

Ha. No doubt about that. He's using Al Franken phrases, for goodness
sake.

Ricky

in article . net, Steven P.
McNicoll at wrote on 4/17/04 4:34 AM:


"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.

I notice that Rush Limbaugh hasn't objected too strongly to the ACLU leaping
to his defense.

Then again, he may be high. lol

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

"Pete" wrote in message
t.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.

Actually, you've over-simplified the situation. Both conservatives and
liberals are for
freedom - as long as it's to do things they agree with! Both
conservatives and liberals
are against freedom - when it comes to things they disagree with!

Frankly, I'm getting tired of people using the terms "liberal" and
"conservative" as if they
had any meaning. They're simply ways of casting ones self as one of the
"good guys" - while
at the same time belittling one's opponents - used by those too lazy to
argue the merits of
an issue. For a case in point, see the words "You've bought the
propaganda" printed above.

Rich Lemert

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

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

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? 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?

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".

Perhaps your definition of "conservative" is correct in theory. But like
the old Soviet Union's ridiculous claim to "communism", the practical truth
of our current administration is far from that theory. Tariffs on Steel?
From a "conservative administration"? Not likely!

- Andrew

"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:


"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.

You cannot see it because you only know what you know, and you refuse to
acknowledge that anything you don't understand can be right. By
definition, unfortunately, you're stuck in your own small-minded little
world.

I know this because in another post you wrote:

Of course, if they made real sense, they'd make sense to me.

Not only is that arrogant, but it's incredibly childish. Tough as it may be
for you to believe, you are not the center of any universe but your own.




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.

I could see your reasoning were marriage being redfined in such a way that
some set of people marriaged pre-redefinition would be not married
post-redefinition.

That's not the case.

Did the right to vote change when it was granted to those not white
landowners?




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?

Either you don't follow the news (ie. cases before the US Supreme Court) or
you're playing one of your pedantic games. I don't care which, frankly.

- Andrew

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

You cannot see it because you only know what you know, and
you refuse to acknowledge that anything you don't understand
can be right.


There is nothing about this issue that I do not understand.

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:


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

You cannot see it because you only know what you know, and
you refuse to acknowledge that anything you don't understand
can be right.


There is nothing about this issue that I do not understand.

I'm fascinated by this idea. How do you prove to yourself that all you
understand is all there is to understand?

- Andrew