If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
Jay Honeck wrote:
What about: This nation was founded by men of many nations and backgrounds. It was founded on the principle that all men are created equal, and that the rights of every man are diminished when the rights of one man are threatened. That we no longer seem to believe this is indication enough of a "lifestyle" problem. Well put, Andrew. Just to be clear: I didn't write that; I merely took the quote from a JFK speech. I didn't bother to provide a reference as I assumed people would recognize it as a quote from the indentation, and either recall it or look it up. I expect you know this (judging you from your writing), but I don't want your "well put" comment (thanks, BTW) to mislead anyone else. Personally, I was responding to Eduardo's broadside against American, by proclaiming that our new lifestyle "sucks." By any common measure, this is patently false. The more subtle aspects of our loss of "rights" brought about by the closing of certain airports is a different topic, in my opinion. While I find "sucks" too strong, I assume that this was hyperbole. In my opinion, our lifestyle is a direct reflection of the rights we enjoy. To even just threaten those rights is to diminish that lifestyle. We're not at the "sucking" level yet, true, but the warning flags are out. But be aware that, to me, "lifestyle" includes more than just "standard of living". - Andrew |
#42
|
|||
|
|||
Recently, Andrew Gideon posted:
Neil Gould wrote: Please. Such positions are ignorantly Fascistic, not liberal. Trying to sell us on the idea that record deficits are of no concern is liberal. Fiscal irresponsibility is liberal. So, if the party embraces those that hold such views, one merely has to decide where they stand on such points. I don't find the choice all that hard to make. Interesting. I've been under the belief that "liberal" referred to the freedom with which one read the Constitution and related documents. A "conservative" reading limits government to what's described, a "liberal" reading permit government to do whatever the reader thinks the authors would have intended had they written the documents in the current era. The terms "liberal" and "conservative" have evolved and warped a lot since those definitions. The politic has pretty much rendered them meaningless labels used as quick-references for "the other guy". I tend to look at their behaviors and ignore their rhetoric to determine such things. So what you're calling "liberal" above (a lack of fiscal responsibility) I'd simply call "stupid" at best (at worse: dishonest, robbing future funds to buy today's elections). No argument, here. It *is* stupid, short-sighted, and dishonest. Hmm...I suppose that this makes the tariffs not liberal but stupid (or worse) by my own definition. However, even using your definition, we've still a pretty liberal administration in office today: tax breaks combined with war spending? Deficits rising without consideration of consequences? What's a good conservative to do? It's called a "clean sweep" over the next two years. Oust every nitwit that thinks such policies are a good idea, regardless of their party affiliations. Anything short of that is merely supporting the status quo. Neil |
#43
|
|||
|
|||
At least with the rain forest, we'll inherit a big, empty building when
it fails. Can you build a runway next to it? No, but I-80 is right next to the site. That'll do, in a pinch... -- Jay Honeck Iowa City, IA Pathfinder N56993 www.AlexisParkInn.com "Your Aviation Destination" |
#44
|
|||
|
|||
What about:
This nation was founded by men of many nations and backgrounds. It was founded on the principle that all men are created equal, and that the rights of every man are diminished when the rights of one man are threatened. That we no longer seem to believe this is indication enough of a "lifestyle" problem. Comfort and apathy? -- "He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty, he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself." -- Thomas Paine |
#45
|
|||
|
|||
"Jay Honeck" wrote in message news:gTrSc.131139$eM2.99593@attbi_s51... This is the first time the police (other than SWAT teams) have been walking the streets with fully automatic weapons. The commuter searches were in effect for Can you imagine what the victim's families would say if the Brooklyn Bridge was brought down by a truck full of explosives, and they hadn't been searching trucks beforehand? Why, John Edwards old law firm would be suing.... |
#46
|
|||
|
|||
"G.R. Patterson III" wrote in message ... Brian Downing wrote: Heh. In Illinois if you haven't had any moving violations you plug in some data into a web site and they mail you a sticker to put on the back of your old license that gets you four more years. Talk about coincidence -- I just got my renewal notice today. Turns out that they not only require a total of 6 points, there is a small subset of documents that *must* be produced. In my case, I'll either have to write the State of Tennessee and get a certified copy of my birth certificate or renew my passport. And to pay for this, they tripled the cost of the license and reduced the term from 6 years to 4. Hmmm...in Arizona they jacked the fee to $25 (from $6), but your license doesn't expire until your 65th birthday...even if you're only in your 20's now. Of course, most people are out of the state in less than five years anyway, so it's a great cash coup. |
#47
|
|||
|
|||
Roger Halstead wrote:
OTOH I've never been able to understand how society can ignore nearly 50,000 deaths a year on the highway. Probably because, "Highway crashes claimed a total of 42,815 lives in 2002, up from 42,196 in 2001." http://usgovinfo.about.com/cs/health...rashdeaths.htm When they climb another 17% or so, then we "can ignore nearly 50,000 deaths a year on the highway." Considering the amount of driving we do and the ridiculous road design and maintenance standards coupled with politically correct but irrational licensing entitlements in the US, the only surprise is that the total is not closer to 100,000 than 50,000. However, using the roads in either of our hemispheric neighbors quickly demonstrates that it could be worse. Jack |
#48
|
|||
|
|||
Dave Stadt wrote:
...only 42,000 people were killed in traffic accidents last year, a number unchanged since the 40s. Deaths per mile are down but 42,000 dead people is still a huge loss of life. Relative to what? Irrelevant to "TFR violation", for sure. Death rates are a misleading statistic anyway. Cars are so much safer now, that we should be looking at the number of crashes of all types per mile, and not just fatalities. The cars are better, but not the drivers. Jack |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
AOPA Stall/Spin Study -- Stowell's Review (8,000 words) | Rich Stowell | Aerobatics | 28 | January 2nd 09 02:26 PM |
I wonder if Chris Thomas is a real pilot? Anybody know? | Badwater Bill | Home Built | 116 | September 3rd 04 05:43 PM |
Pilot Error? Is it Mr. Damron? | Badwater Bill | Home Built | 3 | June 23rd 04 04:05 PM |
Single-Seat Accident Records (Was BD-5B) | Ron Wanttaja | Home Built | 41 | November 20th 03 05:39 AM |
Effect of Light Sport on General Aviation | Gilan | Home Built | 17 | September 24th 03 06:11 AM |