Pilot's Political Orientation

"Otis Winslow" wrote in message
...

I would hardly call Libertarians very conservative. While the
free market position could lead one to think that ... the general
approach of us being able to do our own thing as long as we
don't interfere with others exercising that same freedom is a
long way away from the ultra conservative approach. They want
to control our every action and make our moral judgements for
us.


It is liberals that wish to control other people.

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

"Otis Winslow" wrote in message
.. .


I would hardly call Libertarians very conservative. While the
free market position could lead one to think that ... the general
approach of us being able to do our own thing as long as we
don't interfere with others exercising that same freedom is a
long way away from the ultra conservative approach. They want
to control our every action and make our moral judgements for
us.




It is liberals that wish to control other people.

The conservative viewpoint: "With very few exceptions, we don't give a
damn why
you're pregnant. The fact is that you are, and therefore if you do
anything other than
carry that child to term you are a baby-killer. We won't _force_ you to
do so, of
course, we'll just make your life (and that of everyone around you) hell
if you don't."

The liberal viewpoint: "We don't really care why you're pregnant,
that's not
important any more. The fact is that you are, and you may have to make a
very difficult choice. All we can do for you now is tell you what
choices are
available and what there probably consequences are. The choice, however, is
something only you can make."

Now, why do I have a problem believing that conservatives aren't
interested in
controlling others?

Rich Lemert

"darwin smith" wrote in message
link.net...

The conservative viewpoint: "With very few exceptions, we don't
give a damn why you're pregnant. The fact is that you are, and
therefore if you do anything other than carry that child to term you
are a baby-killer. We won't _force_ you to do so, of course, we'll
just make your life (and that of everyone around you) hell if you
don't."

The liberal viewpoint: "We don't really care why you're pregnant,
that's not important any more. The fact is that you are, and you
may have to make a very difficult choice. All we can do for you
now is tell you what choices are available and what there
probably consequences are. The choice, however, is something
only you can make."

Now, why do I have a problem believing that conservatives aren't
interested in controlling others?


It appears it's because you are a person of low intelligence. You have the
liberals telling her she has complete control over the baby, even to the
point of killing it, and the conservatives telling her she does not have
that control.

"SNIP"
The conservative viewpoint: "With very few exceptions, we don't give a
damn why
you're pregnant. The fact is that you are, and therefore if you do
anything other than
carry that child to term you are a baby-killer. We won't _force_ you to
do so, of
course, we'll just make your life (and that of everyone around you) hell
if you don't."

The liberal viewpoint: "We don't really care why you're pregnant,
that's not
important any more. The fact is that you are, and you may have to make a
very difficult choice. All we can do for you now is tell you what
choices are
available and what there probably consequences are. The choice, however,
is
something only you can make."

Now, why do I have a problem believing that conservatives aren't
interested in
controlling others?

Rich Lemert


Tell me Rich...why does anyone other than her parents need to tell her
anything? It seems to me the parents have the responsibility to initially
take the appropriate steps to insure the pregnancy does not occur. If that
fails...it is then their responsibility to guide her through that
challenging time in her life. There in lies the significant difference
between conservatives and liberals. Conservatives believe the
responsibility lies with the family...liberals believe only the "State" can
educate on matters of reproduction, and only the State can solve social
problems. Remember "it takes a village"?

"Joe Young" wrote in message
...

Tell me Rich...why does anyone other than her parents need to tell her
anything? It seems to me the parents have the responsibility to initially
take the appropriate steps to insure the pregnancy does not occur. If
that
fails...it is then their responsibility to guide her through that
challenging time in her life. There in lies the significant difference
between conservatives and liberals. Conservatives believe the
responsibility lies with the family...liberals believe only the "State"
can
educate on matters of reproduction, and only the State can solve social
problems. Remember "it takes a village"?

Paraphrasing a sex educator I heard on the radio many years ago: "We think
that's a *wonderful* idea! We are *completely in favor* of parents giving
their children effective sex education. But, until that starts to happen
(*), can we *please* have effective sex education in the schools?"

(*) implicit in the statement is "in sufficiently significant quantities". I
know your kids and my kids were well educated at home, of course.

In this case, I think the liberals were the hard-nosed realists.

-- David Brooks

Joe Young wrote:

Tell me Rich...why does anyone other than her parents need to tell her

anything?

That's a good question. In an ideal world, parents would be
knowledgable about the
facts of life and comfortable talking about them with their kids. They
would be home
whenever the kids were home, and they'd make sure they knew where their
kids were
when the kids went out with friends. Life would be perfect, and there
would never be
an abortion.

Unfortunately, I happen to live in the real world. This world contains
entirely too
many single parent families, often families where the sole parent has to
work two jobs
just to keep food on the table. This world also contains thousands of
"latch-key" kids
who come home to an empty house, with the parents not expected to be
home for
another three or four hours. In the remaining families, many parents are
completely
uncomfortable with the idea of sex. The "talk" consists of the parents
stammering and
stuttering, and finally saying something like "here's a book, ask your
mother if you have
any questions, and don't do it."

It would be nice if every parent accepted their responsibilities like
you suggest, but
until that happens someone needs to step in and fill the gap. Right now,
it isn't happening.

Rich Lemert

"darwin smith" wrote in message
k.net...
Joe Young wrote:

Tell me Rich...why does anyone other than her parents need to tell her

anything?

That's a good question. In an ideal world, parents would be
knowledgable about the
facts of life and comfortable talking about them with their kids. They
would be home
whenever the kids were home, and they'd make sure they knew where their
kids were
when the kids went out with friends. Life would be perfect, and there
would never be
an abortion.


I never stated life would always be perfect, but just because a mistake was
made doesn't mean we should offer up murder as a way to "fix" the problem.
You seem to assert that since life isn't "ideal" we should just accept a
couple of million abortions in this country every year.


Unfortunately, I happen to live in the real world. This world contains
entirely too
many single parent families, often families where the sole parent has to
work two jobs
just to keep food on the table. This world also contains thousands of
"latch-key" kids
who come home to an empty house, with the parents not expected to be
home for
another three or four hours. In the remaining families, many parents are
completely
uncomfortable with the idea of sex. The "talk" consists of the parents
stammering and
stuttering, and finally saying something like "here's a book, ask your
mother if you have
any questions, and don't do it."

So in your mind ol' Joe lunchbucket doesn't do it "right", so your going to
appoint someone who does. Or... life is just too complicted for everyone so
let's just relieve them of the most significant responsibilites they will
incur in their lifetime.... their kids. As long as we keep lowering our
expectations, we will always acheive exactly those low expectations...or
less... Carried to the extreme...why don't we just tell them to do what
ever feels good because there really isn't any consequenses? Here are your
condoms (let me know if you need more)... there is your local abortionist is
that fails... an oh by the way...what ever you do... don't get invovled with
you local church. You know they really are a bunch of zealots that want to
control your body in addition to your mind...

It would be nice if every parent accepted their responsibilities like
you suggest, but
until that happens someone needs to step in and fill the gap. Right now,
it isn't happening.

That someone should not be a government employee backed by politically
charged rhetoric and social agendas. It is NOT the state's place to be
doling out reproductive advice, and it is definately not the state's place
to be doling out murder disguised as family planning. This bullsh!t failed
in the Soviet Union, it is failing in Cuba, it is failing in North Korea, it
is failing in most of Europe. Centralized planning has never worked in any
society, yet we have a bunch of pointy-nosed intelectuals, and
smarter-than-thou do-gooders that want to keep hoisting it on the American
populus....Why? Is power really that intoxicating?

We have been dumbing down, and lowering our social expectations since the
1960's... To your point, it is not working. Why don't we try raising
expectations? I know that probably sound like a mean old conservative
tactic, but it just might work...

"Joe Young" wrote in message
...

That someone should not be a government employee backed by politically
charged rhetoric and social agendas. It is NOT the state's place to be
doling out reproductive advice, and it is definately not the state's place
to be doling out murder disguised as family planning.

Let me guess, life begins at conception, will full rights?

Centralized planning has never worked in any
society, yet we have a bunch of pointy-nosed intelectuals, and
smarter-than-thou do-gooders that want to keep hoisting it on the American
populus....

This seems like the exact thing you are proposing.

"Peter Gottlieb" wrote in message
. net...

"Joe Young" wrote in message
...

That someone should not be a government employee backed by politically
charged rhetoric and social agendas. It is NOT the state's place to be
doling out reproductive advice, and it is definately not the state's
place
to be doling out murder disguised as family planning.

Let me guess, life begins at conception, will full rights?

Yes... Let me guess about your position. Life begins when the child no
longer needs its "host".... is that at birth, 18 months or is ok to kill
them at 18 years.


Centralized planning has never worked in any
society, yet we have a bunch of pointy-nosed intelectuals, and
smarter-than-thou do-gooders that want to keep hoisting it on the
American
populus....

This seems like the exact thing you are proposing.


Just the opposite...read what I said. The government at any level should
not be involved in social engineering. It does however have a role in
protection...

"Peter Gottlieb" wrote in message
. net...

Let me guess, life begins at conception, will full rights?


I assume you meant "with full rights". Yes, life begins at conception, and
the baby has the same rights as any other minor.