Pilot's Political Orientation

"Joe Young" wrote in message
...

That someone should not be a government employee backed by politically
charged rhetoric and social agendas. It is NOT the state's place to be
doling out reproductive advice, and it is definately not the state's place
to be doling out murder disguised as family planning.

Let me guess, life begins at conception, will full rights?

Centralized planning has never worked in any
society, yet we have a bunch of pointy-nosed intelectuals, and
smarter-than-thou do-gooders that want to keep hoisting it on the American
populus....

This seems like the exact thing you are proposing.

"Dan Luke" wrote in message
...

I guess I'll have to; he's gun-shy now. I sure did want to see him get
shredded on talk.origins again, though; it's pure entertainment.

I told you all you have to do is make a crosspost. I wouldn't post to a
Mormon newsgroup eiither. I enjoy mopping the floor with the uneducated
crew that hangs out at talk.origins. It upsets the biologists to see you
make such a fool of yourself though and I do not want to run off the
competent.

David Brooks opined

"C J Campbell" wrote in message
...

I have never been convicted of anything. No one saw me do it. You can't
prove it. The sheep are lying.

Does that mean it's going to rain?

No, it's cows that lie down before it rains. Dunno what sheep do.


-ash
Cthulhu for President!
Why vote for a lesser evil?

"Peter Gottlieb" wrote in message
. net...

"Joe Young" wrote in message
...

That someone should not be a government employee backed by politically
charged rhetoric and social agendas. It is NOT the state's place to be
doling out reproductive advice, and it is definately not the state's
place
to be doling out murder disguised as family planning.

Let me guess, life begins at conception, will full rights?

Yes... Let me guess about your position. Life begins when the child no
longer needs its "host".... is that at birth, 18 months or is ok to kill
them at 18 years.


Centralized planning has never worked in any
society, yet we have a bunch of pointy-nosed intelectuals, and
smarter-than-thou do-gooders that want to keep hoisting it on the
American
populus....

This seems like the exact thing you are proposing.


Just the opposite...read what I said. The government at any level should
not be involved in social engineering. It does however have a role in
protection...

"Joe Young" wrote in message
...

Let me guess, life begins at conception, will full rights?

Yes... Let me guess about your position. Life begins when the child no
longer needs its "host"....

Bad guess!

Just the opposite...read what I said. The government at any level should
not be involved in social engineering. It does however have a role in
protection...

What you are asking is that the government "protects" your particular
religious beliefs.

"Peter Gottlieb" wrote in message
. net...

"Joe Young" wrote in message
...

Let me guess, life begins at conception, will full rights?

Yes... Let me guess about your position. Life begins when the child no
longer needs its "host"....

Bad guess!

What would be a good guess?


Just the opposite...read what I said. The government at any level
should
not be involved in social engineering. It does however have a role in
protection...

What you are asking is that the government "protects" your particular
religious beliefs.


No. just all of it's citizens

No clue at all. But then, this is not an economics forum.



"C J Campbell" wrote in
:


"Judah" wrote in message
...

I made no mention of stealing. The Free Market in the US requires that
people redistribute assets in order to get rich. Most people don't get
rich based solely on their hourly rate. They get rich by buying low
and selling high - real estate, stocks, antiques on a road show, or
whatever.

In the free market economy, someone wins, and someone loses.

You really don't have a clue, do you, about economics?

C J Campbell wrote:

Well, we can start with the education system, which is excessively top
heavy. We seem to be getting a lot less for the dollar every year. Around
here the typical school administrator or high school principal has an office
that rivals that of a senior partner in a large law firm, even while the
teachers are badly underpaid. That sends a rather contradictory message. The
taxpayers who are paying for this stuff would sure like to have offices like
that.
[snip]
Those will do for starters; I can probably think of several more. The IMF,
for example.

It will probably come as a major shock to you, but I actually agree
with some of your
targets. In fact, there are some things that I would add to your list.
Of course, you have
some items there I believe are justifiable expenses, just as my list
will probably contain
a few of your 'sacred cows'.

When you get down to it, government spending - no matter how small -
will always have
something that someone will complain about. The best we can do is try to
reach some sort
of consensus that minimizes the overall level of complaint.

There are two other things we can do as individuals too, I suppose.
One is to demand a
complete and honest accounting of where the government's revenue comes
from and
where it goes (no unrealistically optimistic assumptions). The other is
to stop demanding
that our representatives "bring home the bacon", and start rewarding the
ones that
balance revenue and expenditures.

(Contrary to what so many like to think, it isn't Congress that's
causing the unbalanced
budget, or the president. It's you and me, demanding that our
representatives bring home
our pork while cutting everything to the bone for everyone else.)

Rich Lemert

Tarver Engineering wrote:


This is my last reply here at rai, as this is way off topic and I don't
expect you will change your religous beliefs based on hard physical
evidence, or for any other reason.

I agree that this discussion is way off topic, and that it's a good
time to end it. It's
just such a shame that you refuse to offer any "hard physical evidence"
for your
statements.

Oh, and by the way, I guess astronomy cannot be considered a science
either since it
so often fails the "experimentally demonstrable" requirement of a
theory. I do suggest
you check out a good discussion on the philosophy of science sometime,
though, to
find out what really is required to have a valid theory.

Rich Lemert

Joe Young wrote:

It is NOT the state's place to be
doling out reproductive advice

Then why is the state involved in education at all, in your opinion? Or is
that too a mistake?

- Andrew