Pilot's Political Orientation

"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message
...

Libertarians are as far to the right as it gets in America.


Kindly site some Libertarian positions that would indicate a far right
leaning. Live and let live is a far right position? Personal responsibility
is a far right position? A desire for a small government, minimal
interference in our lives and maximum liberty to live as we please
is a far right position? What am I missing here?

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

Marriage is the union of a man and woman as husband and wife.

Who are you to define "marriage" thusly? Other cultures and religions
define it quite differently. You've failed to account for polygamy,
polyandry, group marriage, serial marriage, and probably other forms of
this particular institution with which I'm even less familiar.

So what about this "freedom" you claim to desire?

- Andrew

Newps wrote:

Therefore the feds will need to solve this
problem, one way or the other.

You'll have to be more clear for me, I'm afraid, as I'm not seeing "the
problem" with the Constitution. If states choose to act as you describe,
failing to recognize either drivers licenses or marriage licenses, they're
in violation. Enforce as necessary.

That would be unfortunate if made necessary, as enforcement always is. But
I'm still not clear on "the problem" you're seeing.

- Andrew

L Smith wrote:
Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

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


This seems to be boiling down to an argument over semantics,
where you choose to define terms in such a way as to give you
the moral high ground. Given that, please define, as precisely as
possible, how you define a "gay marriage" and how it differs from
a same-sex marriage. It appears that your definition is not in
agreement with how the general population interprets the term, and
until we understand your definition any meaningful discussion on the
topic is impossible.




Marriage is the union of a man and woman as husband and wife. When at
least
one of the persons is gay you have a gay marriage. Same-sex marriage
cannot
exist because marriage, by definition, requires persons of opposite sex.

1) Extending this argument, there is therefore no need for Bush's
proposed constitutional
amendment, since by definition there can be no same-sex marriage.

If it weren't for liberal activist judges who try to make law rather
than interpret the law, the amendment would, in fact, be superfluous.
It is simply restating the obvious, but liberal judges are unable to
understand it any other way.

Matt

in article , Joe Young at
wrote on 4/18/04 9:23 AM:


"Philip Sondericker" wrote in message
...
in article , Joe Young at
wrote on 4/18/04 8:54 AM:

"SNIP"

Head over to your local Jr/Sr high school history department and see
for
yourself.........

Sorry, that's anecdotal evidence, not proof (actually, it's not even
anecdotal evidence, since you offered no experiences of your own).


Let see...the alternative are for you to experience what is going on in
my
kids classroom through me

Okay, so you're a teacher. Please give some examples of your students
being
taught at your school that Thomas Jefferson was a horrible guy.

...or actually take the time to find out first hand
in your own locale. Granted the latter may take a bit more effort on
your
part...but that was the point. I think most people would be surprised
how
the curriculum has changed over the past couple of decades

Okay, so show me the curriculum.


I am not a teacher...I do have two daughters... and am continually surprised
by what they bring home. One of the recent discussions pointed out that
many of our founding fathers were slave-owners and therefore were obviously
something less than honorable men...that point alone meant they unworthy of
any honor that had been bestowed upon them by the generations since. How
about the concept that we owe decedents of slaves reparations because their
ancestors were enslaved....and on and on....

Yes, how about that concept? I would think that it would do no one any harm
to discuss it. I recall many such discussions in my own high school civics
classes (this was over 20 years ago). We'd discuss and debate whether or not
it was right to drop the bomb on Japan (the consensus seemed to be that it
was), how much civil liberties should be curtailed during wartime, etc. I
wonder if you might be assuming that your daughters are being taught a
particular dogma, when in fact they are merely being encouraged by their
teachers to consider all sides of an issue.

The point I was attempting to make is I have not been involved in a local
school since I left high school 25 years ago. I am just surprised at the
revisionist crap I hear discussed. My point is I think there would be
others equally surprised if they would take the time to get involved
again.............

"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
...

If it weren't for liberal activist judges who try to make law rather
than interpret the law, the amendment would, in fact, be superfluous.
It is simply restating the obvious, but liberal judges are unable to
understand it any other way.

Are "liberal activist judges" any worse than conservative activist judges?

Isn't case law created in courts rather than by legislation, and a part of
the balance of power of the government?

wrote in message
...

Actually, it's another from Winston Churchill (who as I remember
changed political party himself, probably at age 30).

Actually, it's probably not. This from the authoritative Churchill Centre
website http://www.winstonchurchill.org/i4a/...fm?pageid=112:

"If you're not a liberal when you're 25, you have no heart. If you're not
a
conservative by the time you're 35, you have no brain." There is no record
of anyone hearing Churchill say this. Paul Addison of Edinburgh University
makes this comment: "Surely Churchill can't have used the words attributed
to him. He'd been a Conservative at 15 and a Liberal at 35! And would he
have talked so disrespectfully of [his wife] Clemmie, who is generally
thought to have been a lifelong Liberal?"

And remember most people here are using the term Liberal in its modern
American meaning. It seems to have been coined on the spot by GHWB as an
intended insult against Dukakis and adopted by both sides as a shorthand
for, at best, "social democrat". If you want to use the term disparagingly
you also imply it includes fellow-travelers like socialists (again, not
using the contemporary European definition) and anarchists. It's very
confusing when we don't even agree on the lexicon.

The British inter-war Liberal party espoused elements of contemporary social
democracy, to be sure, without the overhead of being in thrall to the
unions. Today, they largely represent the rump of the British, umm, Social
Democratic party.

-- David Brooks

"Otis Winslow" wrote in message
...

"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message
...

Libertarians are as far to the right as it gets in America.


Kindly site some Libertarian positions that would indicate a far right
leaning.

Fiscal conservatism and a strong resistence to government redistribution are
two consrvative sentiments libertarians share.

Live and let live is a far right position? Personal responsibility
is a far right position?

You know the latter is extremism to the American left.

A desire for a small government, minimal
interference in our lives and maximum liberty to live as we please
is a far right position?

Yes. Ted Kennedy called constructionist Judicial nominees "Neanderthals".
Even wanting our republic back is extremism these days.

What am I missing here?

You are probably thinkin of left and right in European terms, where both
ends of the spectrum are socialist.

"C J Campbell" wrote in message
...

"Judah" wrote in message
...
How, exactly, do the rich get richer without taking other people's
assets?


Here we have the crux of what passes for liberalism these days. Idiot.

The assumption is that if you possess something, it must have been stolen
from somebody else. It is astounding that liberals, who claim to be
intellectuals, cannot see the blatant fallacy behind this argument.

Oh, please read the liberal economists. They understand perfectly well the
principles of investment and growth, and that any successful economy cannot
be zero-sum.

The differences arise partly from a moral impulse to greater equity, even at
the cost of diluting some of the potential upside, and partly from a belief
that we are wasting leverage by (a) under-investment in the currently
disadvantaged and (b) allowing corporations to take short-term advantage at
the cost of longer-term greater universal gain (example: stop the polluters
because no credible free-market mechanism will stop them in time).

We're not all as idiotic as some of the postings make us appear.

I'd rather fly than argue any day :-)

-- David Brooks

"Dave Stadt" wrote in message
m...

Didja ever notice how liberals are more than willing to take other peoples
assets and redistribute them but are more than willing to keep their
assets
to themselves.

What trash. I'll compare my asset redistribution against yours any day,
punk.

-- David Brooks