Thrown out of an FBO...

Jessica Taylor wrote in
:

"Eventually" with respect to Hong Kong was just a few weeks after Pearl
Harbor's bombing.
....
No doubt about it, Iraq is a very tough situation, for a lot of
historical reasons. But by taking the fight of Al-Quaeda back to their
turf away from North America, a tide was turned. Remember that many of

The point is that regardless of the justification used, the attack on Iraq
was about racism and vengence. You have it, because in your mind moving the
war to Iraq put it on "their turf".

Iraq is not Al-Queda's turf. Afghanistan is. We should have flattened
Afghanistan, and dealt with Iraq separately, in cooperation with our
allies.

All Arabs are not the same.

these same countries that you claim we lost credibility with are also
the same nations that did NOTHING for years and years while their
neighbor was spitting on a peace treaty (...sounds familiar) and
building up a military, arms, strategic infrastructure, etc. That
eventually uncontained neighbor than caused unprecedented catastrophes
and human suffering. Today, technology does not require any such large
military or arms to create such catastrophes and human suffering. If
the UN would not enforce the cease-fire with Baghdad, who would ?

The UN WAS taking steps. GW just didn't think they were tough enough. When
he presented his case to the UN, they told him it wasn't time yet. He
didn't want to listen and did it anyway. Eventually, if Iraq really was to
become a threat, the UN reaction would have adjusted appropriately.

We also had intelligence, not only from our own agencies, but from
Russia, France, Germany, United Kingdom etc. that suggested that Iraq
was on its way to building such technology. Since then, we have found

Korea was closer to building such technology.

Keep in mind, during the 1990s, we had a New York World Trade Center
bombing, embassies attacked/bombed, ships attacked. etc. Terrorists
learned in Somalia that by attacking US forces (even under UN forces),
they will run away.

So now instead of running away, we demolished their neighbor's country. How
is that any better. If I'm the terrorist, I'm laughing even harder.

Do not forget that Baghdad was bombed severely by the USA in 1998 (with
more bombs than the entire 1991 gulf war) and this accomplished nothing
but defiance and more spitting on the 1991 peace treaty (..sounds
familiar).

And were the results in 2003 really all that much different? It just moved
the enemy back underground and made them harder to find.

To me the only good terrorist is a good one, I don't care where they may
hail from. Perhaps it would be better to have a murdering dictator back
in power. But I'm glad he's offline.

Your racism is showing.

Judah wrote:

Jessica Taylor wrote in
:

"Eventually" with respect to Hong Kong was just a few weeks after Pearl
Harbor's bombing.
...
No doubt about it, Iraq is a very tough situation, for a lot of
historical reasons. But by taking the fight of Al-Quaeda back to their
turf away from North America, a tide was turned. Remember that many of

The point is that regardless of the justification used, the attack on Iraq
was about racism and vengence. You have it, because in your mind moving the
war to Iraq put it on "their turf".

Oh please. There's the R word again. Whenever a legitimate argument cannot be
made, I've noticed that "racism" charges seep out.



Iraq is not Al-Queda's turf. Afghanistan is.

Even if that was singularily true, you missed that Afghanistan was attacked (I
know, how "racist"), Al queada is in Iraq, and suicide bombers were funded by
Iraq, and terrorists did in fact exist in Iraq.



We should have flattened
Afghanistan, and dealt with Iraq separately, in cooperation with our
allies.

All Arabs are not the same.

Sure, but I never said otherwise. Nice strawman.



these same countries that you claim we lost credibility with are also
the same nations that did NOTHING for years and years while their
neighbor was spitting on a peace treaty (...sounds familiar) and
building up a military, arms, strategic infrastructure, etc. That
eventually uncontained neighbor than caused unprecedented catastrophes
and human suffering. Today, technology does not require any such large
military or arms to create such catastrophes and human suffering. If
the UN would not enforce the cease-fire with Baghdad, who would ?

The UN WAS taking steps. GW just didn't think they were tough enough. When
he presented his case to the UN, they told him it wasn't time yet. He
didn't want to listen and did it anyway. Eventually, if Iraq really was to
become a threat, the UN reaction would have adjusted appropriately.

We also had intelligence, not only from our own agencies, but from
Russia, France, Germany, United Kingdom etc. that suggested that Iraq
was on its way to building such technology. Since then, we have found

Korea was closer to building such technology.

I suspect you mean North Korea. So, what is your point, you wanted to see a
war against Korea first? Would that absolve your "racist" charges above.



Keep in mind, during the 1990s, we had a New York World Trade Center
bombing, embassies attacked/bombed, ships attacked. etc. Terrorists
learned in Somalia that by attacking US forces (even under UN forces),
they will run away.

So now instead of running away, we demolished their neighbor's country. How
is that any better. If I'm the terrorist, I'm laughing even harder.

Laughing to the grave.



Do not forget that Baghdad was bombed severely by the USA in 1998 (with
more bombs than the entire 1991 gulf war) and this accomplished nothing
but defiance and more spitting on the 1991 peace treaty (..sounds
familiar).

And were the results in 2003 really all that much different? It just moved
the enemy back underground and made them harder to find.

If the enemy was so above ground and easy to find before 2003, why wasn't the
enemy found/destroyed in 1993? In 1996? In 1998? In 2000?



To me the only good terrorist is a good one, I don't care where they may
hail from. Perhaps it would be better to have a murdering dictator back
in power. But I'm glad he's offline.

Your racism is showing.

In other words you have no legitimate argument. Yes, favoring brutal murdering
dictators --who use rape rooms and ear lobbing for population control-- not
being in power is "racist." I'll bet I'm a xenophobe and a Nazi and a sexist
too!

Oh please. There's the R word again. Whenever a legitimate argument cannot be
made, I've noticed that "racism" charges seep out.

Anyone objective person can look at the words of liberals in the USA
and note that they are the true racists (along with many black folks
who spew venom and hatred). Plus liberals enact policies that
promote disfunctional black families that then leads to poverty,
crime, etc. People can improve their lives if they stay in committed
man/woman relationships, only raise kids that they can afford, take on
the responsibility to ensure that the kids are ejumakated and teach
them right from wrong.

Unfortunately, with liberals around that won't happen.

Jay, if you are still reading these how do you like the turn of
events?

Ron Lee

Unfortunately, with liberals around that won't happen.

Jay, if you are still reading these how do you like the turn of
events?

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz...........mmmm...wha...HUH ? Oh, right. THIS
thread....

:-)

Actually, Ron, although we are far afield from my original post, I DO
find it fascinating and refreshing to note that there are people out
there (like you, and Jessica, etc.) who are still willing to logically,
point-by-point refute the nonsense and hatred spewed by the "liberal"
(GOD, what a horrible *******ization of a once-wonderful word!)
Hotze/Borchardt/Drescher/Regish clan. I, for one, ran out of energy to
argue with their block-headed stubborness long ago.

I've come to the sad conclusion that it is impossible to impart what
most of us see as common sense into people who claim to understand the
logic behind the theory of evolution, yet profess to seeing nothing
wrong -- or even unusual -- about sexual practices that by themselves
would guarantee the end of the human race.

I hold out little hope for changing anyone that can bend their minds
around such illogic.

Which, by the way, isn't to say I have anything against homosexuality.
I personally don't care if you want to screw pumpkins all night, if you
do it in the privacy of your own home and far, far away from my kids.
But don't even THINK about telling anyone that it's "normal", or that
my children need to be exposed to it.

Quite frankly, I don't understand why the homosexual lobby is wasting
all of their political credibility on the same-sex marriage issue. If
they had any sense at all, they would spend their political capital on
obtaining equal rights for same-sex unions -- call them whatever you
want, except "marriage" -- and drop the politically suicidal tactic of
trying to claim that their relationships are "normal" and should be
called "marriage". No mainstream national politician can support such
a stance, and -- one state a time -- homosexuals are going to find that
their current rights have been stripped away, either through referendum
or by amendment. It's already happening.

Quite frankly, I don't think that most people care if two guys want to
claim ever-lasting love, nor would they care if they were granted all
of the rights that married couples have by law. What they DO care about
is the specious claims that these couples are somehow "married" or
"normal". It's an insult to our intelligence, and the homosexual
lobby is doing far more self-harm than good by pressing this issue to
the breaking point.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

in article , Jay Honeck
at wrote on 11/13/06 6:36 PM:



Which, by the way, isn't to say I have anything against homosexuality.
I personally don't care if you want to screw pumpkins all night, if you
do it in the privacy of your own home and far, far away from my kids.
But don't even THINK about telling anyone that it's "normal", or that
my children need to be exposed to it.

How amusing to read these thoughts in a forum devoted to FLYING. God forbid
people should devote themselves to any pursuit not strictly sanctioned by
nature, eh?

I hate to break it to some folks, but human endeavor in its ENTIRETY has
been about defying nature at every turn. It's the only reason we live the
way we do.

And don't worry about the population, Jay. Even if 90% of us permanently
stopped breeding, there would still be plenty of people.

"Philip S." wrote in message
...
in article , Jay
Honeck
at wrote on 11/13/06 6:36 PM:
How amusing to read these thoughts in a forum devoted to FLYING. God
forbid
people should devote themselves to any pursuit not strictly sanctioned by
nature, eh?

I hate to break it to some folks, but human endeavor in its ENTIRETY has
been about defying nature at every turn. It's the only reason we live the
way we do.

True to a point, however, using an 'exit' as an 'entrance' is not sinply
(note intentional mis-spelling) defying nature. It's defying God (pick
one!), nature, and the way of our ancestors. This country, and I'm sure
yours, didn't get where it is today by spinning around our fellow man and
giving him a good old rogering!
But we digress.
Jay! I think the guy that threw you out was went overboard, even if he was
offended by the comments, which to me, should have been taken in the
joking/ribbing way intended. If he was a blonde woman, would he have reacted
as badly to a blonde joke? Most blonde women I know certainly would have
just laughed along with it!
Oz/Crash Lander



And don't worry about the population, Jay. Even if 90% of us permanently
stopped breeding, there would still be plenty of people.

in article , Crash Lander at
wrote on 11/13/06 7:53 PM:

"Philip S." wrote in message
...
in article , Jay
Honeck
at wrote on 11/13/06 6:36 PM:
How amusing to read these thoughts in a forum devoted to FLYING. God
forbid
people should devote themselves to any pursuit not strictly sanctioned by
nature, eh?

I hate to break it to some folks, but human endeavor in its ENTIRETY has
been about defying nature at every turn. It's the only reason we live the
way we do.

True to a point, however, using an 'exit' as an 'entrance' is not sinply
(note intentional mis-spelling) defying nature. It's defying God (pick
one!), nature, and the way of our ancestors. This country, and I'm sure
yours, didn't get where it is today by spinning around our fellow man and
giving him a good old rogering!

To which ancestors are you referring? The Greeks, perhaps?

And as to what "God" dictates, at least one fairly influential Holy Book
declares three-score-and-ten to be the "normal" human life span (that's "70"
to you). I fully intend to live beyond that landmark, and I don't give a
**** what God has to say about it. So there.

"Crash Lander" wrote in message
...
True to a point, however, using an 'exit' as an 'entrance' is not sinply
(note intentional mis-spelling) defying nature. It's defying God (pick
one!), nature, and the way of our ancestors.

You're simply projecting your personal squeamishness onto nature and God.
(How can anyone seriously believe that a Creator of the Universe would run
around fretting about where homo sapiens rub their genitals?)

Yes, our ancestors made the same mistake you're making, but that's no reason
to perpetuate it. Women's suffrage, when first introduced, was likewise a
defiance of what our ancestors had believed for thousands of years. And like
you, the opponents of that step forward felt certain that the change was
contrary to nature and God.

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
oups.com...
I've come to the sad conclusion that it is impossible to impart what
most of us see as common sense into people who claim to understand the
logic behind the theory of evolution, yet profess to seeing nothing
wrong -- or even unusual -- about sexual practices that by themselves
would guarantee the end of the human race.

drop the politically suicidal tactic of
trying to claim that their relationships are "normal" and should be
called "marriage".

You seem to be trying to argue that if it would end the human race for
*everyone* to have a particular status (for example, being in a gay instead
of straight relationship), then it follows that there's something
undesirable or "abonormal" about that status.

If that were true, then it would follow that it's undesirable and abnormal
to be (for example) a full-time innkeeper--because if *everyone* (or even
almost everyone) were a full-time innkeeper, there'd be no farmers, doctors,
scientists, etc., and the human race would end.

Contrary to your argument, a moment's reflection shows that the desirability
or normalcy of a particular status has *nothing to do* with the desirability
of *everyone* having that status. You're making a spectacularly naive and
silly attempt to invoke the categorical-imperative principle.

A secondary (but still fatal) inconsistency in your position is that in
fact, many gay couples do reproduce (albeit not with one another) and raise
children; yet you still call such a relationship "abnormal", and refuse to
call it a marriage; and conversely, many straight people voluntarily refrain
from ever reproducing (even having surgery to render themselves infertile),
yet you do not call them "abnormal" nor refuse to call their unions
"marriages".

--Gary

"Gary Drescher" wrote in message
...
[...]
Contrary to your argument, a moment's reflection shows that the
desirability or normalcy of a particular status has *nothing to do* with
the desirability of *everyone* having that status. You're making a
spectacularly naive and silly attempt to invoke the categorical-imperative
principle. [...]

Yet another gap in his "reasoning" is the failure to recognize that
evolution has given us a number of seemingly counter-productive attributes
that, when viewed in a broader context, turn out to indeed have a net
positive gain as far as survival of the species goes.

A well-known example is the gene that causes sickle-cell anemia. The reason
this gene has done so well under the process of evolution is that the
majority of people with the same gene wind up having a certain level of
defense against malaria. The net effect to the species is one that enhances
survival, even if in some individuals it hinders reproduction.

I think it's entirely likely something similar may be found with respect to
homosexuality. Not that failure to find such a thing would change my views
on it, but to argue that homosexuality is somehow contrary to evolution is
overly simplistic thinking at its worst. The mere fact that it exists, and
in such relative prevalence (as genetic "defects" go, it's pretty
common...and I do use that word "defect" very loosely), strongly suggests
that in the greater scheme of things, homosexuality is important for the
greater good in some way.

Nevertheless, it's my opinion that you are wasting your time trying to point
any of this out, especially here. Jay in particular has NEVER admitted to
an error, never mind has he ever changed his mind on anything important.
This is the wrong forum for this kind of debate anyway, but it's especially
pointless in the context of people who have minds so closed, they can't even
get a word in edge-wise when no one's talking.

That said, every time someone like Jay or Ron go around spouting strong
words against homosexuality, I just remember the recent study that looked at
sexual arousal (measured by penis engorgement) in human males when shown
homosexual images. The men who voiced the strongest opinions against
homosexuality showed the greatest degree of arousal. Clearly, "methinks he
doth protest too much" applies here.

Pete