Pilot's Political Orientation

"darwin smith" wrote in message
ink.net...
Tarver Engineering wrote:

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.

Why would you post something so rediculess? Astromony adheres to the real
scientific method. Anyway, the discussion is moved to talk.origins. TO has
been pretty well destroyed since my discussion with Andrew Hall there would
up in the WSJ, so you will find many kooks and trolls there.

Success in governing requires more than one point of view. It takes
ALL of us thinking and acting upon our beliefs. The collective wisdom
is greater than any ONE person's wisdom, and even greater than the sum
of all the people's wisdom. That is what MAKES a democracy work.

"Ash Wyllie" wrote in message
...
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.


I hear they do baad things.

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

wrote in message ...

No doubt about it, and I did not imply that. Nonetheless, a
3,000' runway at Podunk, Iowa, with two GPS approaches,
represents a signifgicant federal subsidy to the users of that
airport.


I can't find Podunk in the Iowa airport directory. Not by city or airport
name. Where is this airport? What is the dollar amount of the federal
subsidy for a 3,000' runway and two GPS approaches at this airport?

Keep looking.

I was not suggesting the feds paid for the runway. The GPS approaches cost
about $60,000 each. If you want verfication for that write to the FAA.

wrote in message ...

Keep looking.


I have concluded it does not exist.



I was not suggesting the feds paid for the runway. The
GPS approaches cost about $60,000 each. If you want
verfication for that write to the FAA.


Is that how you obtained the figure? Why not just post the relevant parts
of your letter from the FAA?

a really important plot point:

The liberals have been much more successful in redistributing the wealth,
than the conservatives have been in controlling my body.

As soon as this changes, I will vote the other way.

Everyone is being punished by the socialist system, even the poor who are
corrupted by it. I don't think the conservatives could ever come close to
being as invasive in my life as the libs. In any case, the conservatives
are in favor of me having a gun, so that tells me a little about how "in my
face" they intend to get.





"Pete" wrote in message
...
In article .net,
"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

"Pete" wrote in message
.com...

No, they want to tell you what you can and can't do in your
bedroom, and with your own body. They want to tell you who
you can marry, demand you go to church, but then you catch
them in a motel room doin' what they said not to do.

Conservatives are a bunch of lying liars.


You've bought the propaganda.

The basic difference between conservatives and liberals is their
position on
freedom. Conservatives are fer it, liberals are agin' it.

Then why the fight against gay marriage? Why the fight against abortion?
Why the fight against pr0n?

Conservatives are all for the rights of corporations to dump waste oil
into fresh water supplies, for the rights of employers to force their
workers to take horrrible physical risks and then not be compensated
when they're injured.

They're in favor of telling women what they can do with their bodies, in
favor of snooping in private bedrooms, in favor of snooping on people's
computers.

The way things are going, the only good conservative, is a dead one, and
in case you're wondering, I'm 53 years old. I see what happens when
idiots like Chimpie are in power. Or evil criminals like Reagan and
Nixon.
--
Hell yeah I'd love to make it
But I suck at playing games
I'd rather starve than fake it
For a little taste of fame

It's not about gay marriage. No doubt they are against gay
marriage, they should be.

Why?


votes.

don't put unpopular ideas in your program when you want to get
elected.

It must be; no one can give another reason. Those talking about the
importance of freedom and reducing government are the same ones who want to
force others to be like themselves.

Amen

"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
...
Dave Stadt wrote:
"Judah" wrote in message
...

"Dave Stadt" wrote in
m:


"Judah" wrote in message
...

How, exactly, do the rich get richer without taking other people's
assets?

By applying themselves and earning what they accumulate. If you are
smart and work hard you win. If you are dumb and sit at home waiting
for the welfare check you lose.


Ahhh... So that's why my brilliant seventh grade science teacher is so
wealthy, and Mike Tyson, who can barely speak english, is so broke!


In fact Mike Tyson is broke. His current net worth is a couple of
thousand
dollars. Tyson didn't sit home waiting for a government check although
he
might well end up in that situation. If in fact the science teacher is
brilliant the opportunity to increase earnings is readily available.




And not everyone is driven by wealth creation. A lot of teachers,
scientists, etc., really are driven by other motiviations. I know that
is hard for many to believe, but it is true.


Matt

"Philip Sondericker" wrote in message
...
in article , Dan Truesdell at
wrote on 4/16/04 6:32 PM:

I don't feel guilty. I feel fortunate. And I look at the whole
picture. I've worked hard to get a degree, develop a career, and have a
comfortable lifestyle (that fortunately includes a plane). However, I
also recognize that, due to the fact I grew up in a poor family in a
poor town, you all paid for half my college education. (I paid the
other half.) Thank you! That "Robin hood Government" you speak of took
a small piece of your hard earned money and invested it in me. Guess
what? I paid more in taxes last year than I received in 4 years of
financial aid. Sounds like a good investment to me. What did you get
for your money? A very productive member of society who recognizes
that, thanks to a government that believes that an educated populous is
critical, I am able to visit a doctor when I need one. And get a
plumber when I need one. DO you think that the oft-touted "Free Market
Economy" will generate all of the necessary services we all need and
use? Not likely. Only the ones that are profitable. Think of that the
next time you visit a government educated doctor. Or the next time you
kid goes to a government funded school. Or the factory in your town is
kept from dumping toxic waste in your backyard because a government
funded EPA official keeps them from doing it. I realize that there is
certainly waste in government, but let's keep the whole picture in mind.

Wow, a bit of calm, rational sense. Thank you.


Perhaps, but what about the argument that escalating college costs are a
direct result of too much government subsidy. Why did he need college,
because he didn't get an adequate high school education? Was this due to
the effect of the liberalization of public schools?

All this post points out is that the government has gotten way too involved
in our lives without any supporting evidence that we would not be better off
without that involvement. We don't know that the author would not have been
better off without college. We do know that someone elses money went to pay
for that education.

Everyone notices how well off the lottery winner is, and doesn't notice all
the other players being a dollar poorer. That doesn't make the lottery a
free way to create wealth.

There is no free lunch!

"Andrew Gideon" wrote in message
online.com...
I still don't understand what problem you're seeing. If some states
permit
same-sex marriage and some do not, this would be as important as the fact
that states use different criteria for driving licenses. The federal
government is responsible for ensuring (and enforcing, should it come to
that unfortunate extreme) that the various criteria of each state are
respected by the other states.

Where is the problem that needs to be solved?

By the constitution Florida must honor my Montana drivers license. What
criteria each state puts on its own residents is irrelavant. Or the fact
that here in Montana a 14 year old that lives on a ranch can get a license,
drive to Minnesota where the youngest licensee is 16, and drive around all
day and night. They may not even contemplate not recognizing it. With gay
marriage at least 45 states will laugh in your face if we were married and
requested normal benefits available to normal people. Many states actually
have laws that say marriage is between a man and a woman, some however
don't. So now we have a problem that by definition is a federal problem.
If two gay people get married out west in the land of fruits and nuts that
is California the US Constitution says my state must recognize that. No way
in hell that will ever happen. So, federally, the question has to be
answered.