Leaving the community

On Fri, 05 Nov 2004 03:54:37 GMT, "Dudley Henriques"
wrote:


"David Brooks" wrote in message
...

One thing - one of so very many things - I learned in my five years of
flying is that partisan politics does not fit into the cockpit.
-- David Brooks

And neither does reading War and Peace between the outer marker and
decision height.................So for THIS reason you decided to post
this idiotic nonsense and bring politics into the cockpit right?
snip
But you're right,
this kind of thinking has absolutely no place even near an airplane. If
you can't handle it on a simple newsgroup, I'd hate to think of you
flying with some co-pilot someday whose politics you didn't agree with!
Man, this is not a healthy attitude for a pilot.

That's a lot of good common sense Dudley, but with his attitude, I
think he probably made his statement and then left so he wouldn't hear
any rational rebuttals.

I do agree, that any one with that attitude should not be doing
something that requires calm and rational thinking under pressure such
as flying.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
for email; take out the trash

Peter,

Are you talking about the same Colin Powell that got in front of the UN and
swore up and down that he had incontrovertible evidence of weapons of mass
destruction in Iraq?


Hey, claiming stuff like that is what's getting presidents re-elected in the
land of the free, so it must be right...

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
...
AES/newspost wrote:

In article ,
"G.R. Patterson III" wrote:


He's opposed to private ownership of any firearm except shotguns plugged
to
three
shells. And just where in the Constitution exactly is hunting mentioned?
He
prattles
about "military-style assault weapons" while trying to ban
semi-automatics,
knowing
full well that no military-style assault weapon is semi-automatic.

I have the right to own and fire my Mauser, and, as far as I'm
concerned,
that
includes the right to be allowed to buy ammunition for it. Kerry tried
to ban
that,
and we aren't talking anything armor-piercing here.



Want to give us a few details, just for the record, about the "well
regulated militia" to which you, personally, belong? (given your focus
on the Constitution, I assume you do) -- Name, location where it's
registered, number of members, just who it's "well regulated" by, that
sort of thing?

You better go back and learn what "well regulated" meant in the time
when the Constitution was written. And while you are at it, learn what
militia meant at that time as well. Hint, the meanings aren't at all
the same as the generally accepted meanings today.




Please provide a referance to back up your etymological evolution of these
terms.

Earl G.

On Fri, 05 Nov 2004 02:58:32 -0500, Roger wrote:

That's a lot of good common sense Dudley

I thought so too.
--
Steve
E-mail: steve at flyingtigerwebdesign dot com
Hong Kong, 05/11/2004 19:47:44

In article , "Peter Duniho"
wrote:

The FACT remains that there's a much larger chance that the poll
correctly
describes the overall electorate than that it doesn't.

you have much more faith in polls than I do.

--
Bob Noel
Seen on Kerry's campaign airplane: "the real deal"
oh yeah baby.

In article 7kDid.56196$R05.33927@attbi_s53, "Jay Honeck"
wrote:

Just think about it a minute, and it will make more sense. It is only
the
people working OUTSIDE the government that can create wealth or pay
taxes.
How can a government worker pay taxes? The money they are "paying" in
taxes is made from taxes in the first place!

so, the money you earn at your hotel isn't weath if it was from people
who work for the government? What about the people who work for
companies working government contracts?

--
Bob Noel
Seen on Kerry's campaign airplane: "the real deal"
oh yeah baby.

"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...
"Newps" wrote in message
...
Polls are facts about statistics.

A poll isn't a fact about anything except the people who participated.

The poll itself is a fact about the statistical sample taken. Which is
exactly what I said (though apparently not in a verbose enough way for
some
of you).

If you feel you have some good reason to dispite the Gallup poll results,
I'm all ears. If all you can come up with is "well, there's a
0.000000001%
chance that the poll is incorrect", then while that may be perfectly true,
it's a pretty useless statement.

The FACT remains that there's a much larger chance that the poll correctly
describes the overall electorate than that it doesn't.

You would be hard pressed to prove that. Polls are at best one step above a
WAG.

Pete

so, the money you earn at your hotel isn't weath if it was from people
who work for the government? What about the people who work for
companies working government contracts?

Ah, now things get fuzzy, don't they?

Pretty soon we'll be talking about whether wealth really exists at all,
which quickly descends into a "and does it matter, we'll all be dead in a
hundred years" argument anyway.

Since I've already got a headache, I'll pass on this one. Suffice it to say
that real taxes can only be paid by people who, by definition, do not work
in the government. Everything else is merely an illusion.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

"Jim Fisher" wrote
"Terry Bolands" wrote
"Jim Fisher" wrote

But they can't get married and they can't fly low wing
planes. That's just they way it is.

It's not "just the way it is". You can feel it is wrong if
you want, but it's not an innate truism that gay people can't
get married.

Ahh, but it is a truism if one accept the absolute fact that
"marraige" has been recognized for thousands of years as a
religous tenant. We aren't talking "unions" but marraige.

That doesn't make it a truism at all. There are plenty of
non-religious individuals who still believe in the institution of
marriage. Civil servants can perform marriages.

Governemental support of a marraige between a man and a woman
and, thus, protection of the familial unit is supported and
recognized beacause such support has historically contributed
to to overall, long-term survival of governing bodies.

Man+man and woman+woman does NOT a stable family make and does
a government absolutely no good.

You presenting this as a fact, but it is only an opinion.

This makes it a truism, Terry. You don't have to like it but
a rational person cannot deny it.

I disagree. This is a debatable issue, and debatable by fully
rational persons.

Beyond this, doesn't the practice of same-sex marriages in some
European countries prove that it isn't a truism?

I think the line between the religious and civil role is fairly
vague. I, personally, am in favor of same-sex marriage, but I
think I could be in favor a situation in which marriage is soley
a religious rite and civil unions are a, well, civil
distinction. Marriage would only have a religious significance
and civil unions would have legal/financial/etc significance.
Any given religion coud define marriage however they liked, but
any two people could get a civil union.

To say that "Denying sexually aberrant citizens 'marital'
status is akin to human rights abuses endured by black
Americans" is an affront to my, and your, intelligence.

Why call it sexually aberrant? I agree, that is an affront
to your intelligence.

"abeeeeeeerrrrrrrrant (br-nt, -br,-)
adj.
1.. Deviating from the proper or expected course.
2.. Deviating from what is normal; untrue to type.
Man+woman - Expected and even proper.
Man+man - Untrue to type

Gay+high wing: Expected and proper.
Straight+low wing: Expected and proper

Woman+Woman - I don't necessarily have a problem with this
(marriage or adoptive rights-wise) but it is still aberrant.

Until the gay population becomes a significant portion of the
population, gay behavior will be considered "abnormal" and
"aberrant." You don't have to like that fact but it is
axiomatic.

No, it is just different. Calling it aberrant puts the judgment
of 'improper' on it. Your opinions aren't axiomatic, Jim. Most
people in the US used to look on interracial marriage as
aberrant. Opinions have changed...not axiomatic.

tb

"Bob Noel" wrote in message
...
In article 7kDid.56196$R05.33927@attbi_s53, "Jay Honeck"
wrote:

Just think about it a minute, and it will make more sense. It is only
the
people working OUTSIDE the government that can create wealth or pay
taxes.
How can a government worker pay taxes? The money they are "paying" in
taxes is made from taxes in the first place!

so, the money you earn at your hotel isn't weath if it was from people
who work for the government? What about the people who work for
companies working government contracts?

No, it isn't Bob; you're misconstruing the meaning of "wealth", particularly
"wealth creation".


--
Matt
---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO