Pilot's Political Orientation

"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"?

"Tarver Engineering" wrote:
Talk.origins still believes "noone knows how gravity works",

And you do? Time to pick up your Nobel Prize.

so you would have to agree to a scietific venue; as opposed to me
comming to your church.

Chicken.

"Dan Luke" wrote in message
...

"Tarver Engineering" wrote:
Talk.origins still believes "noone knows how gravity works",

And you do? Time to pick up your Nobel Prize.

Albert Einstein explains it in his book, "The Meaning of Relativity", but no
Nobel prize.

so you would have to agree to a scietific venue; as opposed to me
comming to your church.

Chicken.

Cross post it to alt.politics.usa.republican and ping me. I neither read,
or post directly to religious newsgroups. most of your little troll friends
at talk.origins are smart enough to run when they see me posting. Ever
since my discussion with Andrew Hall showed up as half the WSJ editorial
page there are few takers.

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

I asked you to point out where you believe Darwinian theory is in error.

1) Darwin's "Origin of Species" is not a scientific theory, as it fails to
meet the terms of the scientific method.

2) Geological evidence proves to beyond a shadow of a doubt that the
processes laid out in Darwin's "Origin of Species" are false.

3) The State of Georgia teaching Creation straight from Genesis is closer to
a modern scientific theory than Darwin's "Origin of Species".

4) Darwin's notional hypotesis is false even by the admission of biologists.

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


It avoids having to deal with the internal
inconsistency in an administration claiming to be for freedom also coming
out against the idea same-sex marriage...to the point of promoting the
idea
of a constitutional ban.

It's not about gay marriage. No doubt they are against gay marriage, they
should be. The main issue is the US Constitution. I got married in
Minnesota. The Constitution says that all states must recognize my marriage
and all things that naturally occur as a result of that marriage, such as
hospital visitation, benefits, etc. If California passes a law making gay
marriage legal then all 49 other states would have to recognize it. No way
in hell this will ever happen. Therefore the feds will need to solve this
problem, one way or the other. The same principle applies with your drivers
license. Can you imagine what would happen if states didn't recognize other
states drivers licenses?

"Tarver Engineering" wrote:
most of your little troll friends at talk.origins are smart
enough to run when they see me posting.

Another lie.

Try posting there again. If what you just said is the truth, you should
get little or no response.

"L Smith" wrote:
So far, nothing in your response above even comes
close to answering my questions.

You can now see why Tarver is afraid to post in talk.origns. His
witless evasions have been ripped apart there before, but he thinks he
can get away with them here.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

Matt Whiting wrote:

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

Marx would not approve.


What did Groucho know about economics anyway? :-)

Matt

That's the $64,000 question!

"Dan Luke" wrote in message
...

"Tarver Engineering" wrote:
most of your little troll friends at talk.origins are smart
enough to run when they see me posting.

Another lie.

I have science on my side and no reason to lie.

Try posting there again. If what you just said is the truth, you should
get little or no response.

I cross post to talk.origins every few months. It is a kook bin full of
retards spewing 150 year old dog breeder science and an ocasional qualified
biologist. The biologist usually admits that there are big problems with
Darwin's "Origin of Species", but "it demonstrates how one thing might
replace another". Although demonstrating a concept has value, theaching
religion as science is not the way to do it.

"Dan Luke" wrote in message
...
"L Smith" wrote:
So far, nothing in your response above even comes
close to answering my questions.

You can now see why Tarver is afraid to post in talk.origns. His
witless evasions have been ripped apart there before, but he thinks he
can get away with them here.

And horses are an example of "natural selection".