Pilot's Political Orientation

"Martin Hotze" wrote in message
...

I bet Jesus was more into boating. He walked over water.


Jesus was a carpenter. Why would one that can walk on water bother with a
boat.

Doug Carter wrote:
Judah wrote:

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in
link.net:


How, exactly, do the rich get richer without taking other
people's assets?


By creating wealth.

Ex Nihilo?


Perhaps you mean 'Creatio Ex Nihilo', create something out of nothing.

If so, you claim that the value of labor = zero.

Marx would not approve.

What did Groucho know about economics anyway? :-)

Matt

L Smith wrote:
Matt Whiting wrote:

darwin smith wrote:


If you've waited until little Debbie is pregnant, you've lost your
chance to prevent an
abortion, period. All you can do now is stop it, but don't call it
prevention.



Abstinence is strongly supported by all pro-life groups that I'm aware
of and it is the only 100% means to prevent Debbie from getting pregnant.


Abstinence is 100% effective ONLY when one is 100% abstinent. While
this might be
an admirable goal to strive for, it is also completely unattainable. The
sex drive is very
powerful, and our modern culture doesn't make the task any easier. Given
this, I would
prefer to give everyone as much information and as many tools as possible.

True, that as a society we've completely lost self-control and, worse
yet, we've even lost admiration for self-control as a virtue.
Promiscuous sex is just one result of that. Drugs, crime, etc., are a
few others. There's an old saying among quality control people that
"you get what you accept." This applies to human behavior just as much
as it does manufacturing. People like Deming, Crosby, etc., just
refused to accept that defects had to be a part of manufacturing.
Companies that followed their recommendations (most of which were in
Japan, unfortunately for the USA), increased their product quality well
above what others thought was even attainable, let alone economic.
Holding our kids and ourselves to high standards will greatly decrease
many of the bad behaviors tha are so rampant today. However, the
liberals have driven society towards a "if it feels good do
it/situational ethics" point of view and, as I wrote earlier, "you get
what you accept." Since we now accept almost any form of vile speech or
behavior, that is what we increasing get.


Matt

John Harlow wrote:
The prisons are full of parentless children. I am not about to
support anything that is likely to make the situation even worse.


This makes no sense. Are you afraid gays will produce more "parentless
children" (as if there were such a thing) if they were permitted to marry?

You seem to have warped a connection to gays wishing to be legally married
and irresponsible heterosexuals. They have nothing to do with each other.

What exactly is it about gay people that scares you, CJ?

Why would he be afraid of happy people? Oh, you meant homosexuals, why
didn't you say so?

Matt

"Judah" wrote in message
...

The Airline pilot, who flies back and forth across the country twice a
day, uses 100 hours of ATC time in about a week.


Oh, I think you're a bit high there.



If I remember correctly (as quoted by the AOPA) there are
about 250,000 100-hour per year GA planes.


AOPA puts the general aviation fleet at about 205,000 aircraft, and the
average time per aircraft per year at 144 hours.



There are equally as many 100-hour per week Airlines.


Oh, no, it's not even close to that. AOPA puts the airline share of the
215,000 strong civil US fleet at 4%, that would be about 8600 aircraft.



The only real way to fairly and equitably split the cost of the system is
to charge for the time used. It is probably not really practical to do
that for a variety of reasons. But gas consumption probably delivers a
good measure of time a plane spends in the air, and as such using the
system, it is probably a fairly good place to put the tax to cover that
cost.


What makes that fair? The system wasn't created to serve general aviation,
it was created to serve the airlines. If general aviation didn't exist the
system would still be needed to serve the airlines and it wouldn't be much
smaller than it is now.

"Philip Sondericker" wrote in message
...

Do you really believe that the collection of taxes is not backed up with
the
threat of armed force?

You missed my point. Do you think "liberals" are going around robbing
people
at the point of swords?

I think that is the effect of what they are doing, yes. Only they hire men
with guns to do it.

Do you think taxation is an invention of "liberals"?

No, of course not. Did you think it was invented by "conservatives?"

Do you think that any war could be fought without the "armed robbery" of
taxation?

Again, of course not. What I am saying is that one would hope that liberals
would have been a little more judicious about the application of this "armed
robbery." It turns out that they are every bit as bad as any tyrant.

"Judah" wrote in message
...

Freedom for who?


For everyone.



And from what?


The natural constraints on freedom are other people's freedom.

"S Green" wrote in message
...

Execution in the name of revenge is not morally acceptable either.


Agreed, and no reasonable person advocates that.



Deliberately killing a person is murder and is a moral crime.


Not always. Killing another person in self-defense is not murder. Capital
punishment id not murder.

Tarver Engineering wrote:

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



Please point out those parts of "Origin of Species" that are false.
Chances are you'll either find out that scientists have already recognized


the


error,



Yes, nearly all of science knows Darwin's "Origin of species" is completely
false. That is why I provided you with two other brances of science:
Physics demonstrating a theory with repeatable and demonstrable resilts
applied to Cosmology, Geology falses Darwin's "Origin of Species" with hard
physical evidence and then from within the church of Darwin itself, Jay
Gould replaces Darwin's work with a thirteen hundred page treatise trying to
reconcile the obvious undisputable falshoods within Darwin's "Origin of
species". All of the scientific community knows what is being taught in
school is a lie.

Stop teaching Darwin's religion as science in public schools.

So far, nothing in your response above even comes close to answering
my questions.
I asked you to point out where you believe Darwinian theory is in error.
You respond with
a bunch of hand-waving that claims "this group shows its false, and that
group shows its
false, and blah-blah-blah." Since I don't accept the "because they said
so" argument from
people who count (such as those in political office), why do you think
I'll accept that
argument from someone I don't know from Caesar?

If you're unwilling to tell us where you think Darwinian theory is
wrong, are you at least
willing to tell us what you think Darwinian theory says?

By the way, while repeatability is a significant component of a
scientific theory, its not
a necessary or even a sufficient component. Otherwise, there could be
_no_ theories
of the universe. The _necessary_ and _sufficient_ condition required in
order for a
hypothesis to become a scientific theory is that the hypothesis must
lead to predictions
that can be proven false. "The moon is made of green cheese", for
example, meets
this test. You can prove the theory wrong by going to the moon and
seeing what it's
made of.

Can your favorite creation "theory" predict the development of
anti-biotic resistant
bacteria?

Rich Lemert

Joe Young wrote:


You know...your right...it is a matter of definition. Now let's see if we
can settle on a definition for abortion.... Should we use:

Murder....
Infanticide....
Baby killing...
I-don't-want-to-screw-up-my-life-so-I-am-going-to-kill-my-baby.............

allowing for the rape, incest and health of the mother exceptions, what do
you suppose is the reason behind the other 1.4 million abortions performed
in the US each year....

Except for pregnancies terminated for valid medical reasons (health of
the mother,
severe fetal deformity, etc), the basic cause of any abortion is an
unwanted pregnancy.
You prevent that pregnancy, you prevent that abortion. Waiting until
after the pregnancy
has occured is too late - all you can do at that point is try to stop
the abortion from taking
place, you've lost your chance to prevent it.

Rich Lemert


enough of this...lets get back to aviation....