Pilot's Political Orientation

1) I don't seek approval from Marx. Heck! I don't even know the guy!

2) I made no claim whatsoever. My question was, how does one create
wealth out of nothing? Labor is not nothing, but I would contend that it
also does not create wealth. If it did, the manual laborers would be the
wealthy ones.

Most significant assets in the US exist in the form of Real Property
and/or Market Holdings. Since these are relatively fixed assets, the only
way to create wealth in either of these two endeavors is to redistribute
these assets in such a way as you are left with the most money at the
end.

Doug Carter wrote in
:

Judah wrote:
"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in
link.net:

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

By creating wealth.

Ex Nihilo?

Perhaps you mean 'Creatio Ex Nihilo', create something out
of nothing.

If so, you claim that the value of labor = zero.

Marx would not approve.

"Dan Luke" wrote in message
...

"Tarver Engineering" wrote:

Stop the teaching of religion as science in America's public schools.

The big lie.

Yes, Darwin's "Origin of Species" is a big lie.

I'm not going to argue this with you here, Tarver, but I will be glad to
continue the discussion over in talk.origins. Repost there and I will
respond.

Talk.origins still believes "noone knows how gravity works", so you would
have to agree to a scietific venue; as opposed to me comming to your church.

"Snip"
see? it is only a matter of definition.
sure, this is really extrem, but the point remains.

No it isn't a matter of definition...its murder!

So you must also say that the death penalty is murder (no matter what you
achieve with it).

Nope, abortion and euthanasia are issues of convenience. A life is taken to
make someone elses life easier...that is murder. The death penalty is
punishment..you kill, you will be killed. period.


hm. and what is with murder while defending myself? is this murder, too?
or
what is that?

No...again I never said self defense is murder. Any and everyone should
have the right to defend themselves by all available means, including
killing their attacker.

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

Now, I would guess that to you the answer to your "question" is
perfectly obvious -
there is no fight against gay marriage. If this is so, then could you
please explain to me
why the Republican efforts in Massachussetts to ban same-sex unions, and
"Bush the
Lesser's" proposed constitutional amendment are not "fights against gay
marriage"/




Gay marriage is not the same as same-sex marriage.

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.


Those things are not abortion procedures. We were discussing abortion
procedures.

If we were discussing abortion procedures, we would be talking about
things like D&C,
partial-birth abortions, and the like. The discussion was about
abortion, not procedures.
And any discussion of abortion that does not take into account birth
control, sex education,
and other means of providing true ___prevention____ is an imcomplete
discussion.

Rich Lemert

Actually, CJ, you should go back and follow the thread a little more
closely, and maybe read it without your blinders on.

The conservative view presented was that liberals want to take other
people's assets and redistribute them. I responded that conservatives
want to take other people's assets and keep them for themselves. The
response was that conservatives don't want other people's assets, and I
disagree with that completely.

You read my statement as a bitter one of resentment. Actually, I it was a
simple plain fact of the Free Market economy.

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.



"C J Campbell" wrote in
:


"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.

in article , C J Campbell at
wrote on 4/17/04 8:59 PM:


"Philip Sondericker" wrote in message
...

I really don't understand this all this raving. Do you really believe that
people go around robbing other people at swordpoint?


If John and Peter get together and take money from Paul at gunpoint, we call
it armed robbery. If two thousand voters get together and decide to take
money from another thousand, we call it taxation.

Do you really believe that the collection of taxes is not backed up with the
threat of armed force?

You missed my point. Do you think "liberals" are going around robbing people
at the point of swords? Do you think taxation is an invention of "liberals"?
Do you think that any war could be fought without the "armed robbery" of
taxation?

Matt Whiting wrote:

darwin smith wrote:


If you've waited until little Debbie is pregnant, you've lost your
chance to prevent an
abortion, period. All you can do now is stop it, but don't call it
prevention.


Abstinence is strongly supported by all pro-life groups that I'm aware
of and it is the only 100% means to prevent Debbie from getting pregnant.

Abstinence is 100% effective ONLY when one is 100% abstinent. While
this might be
an admirable goal to strive for, it is also completely unattainable. The
sex drive is very
powerful, and our modern culture doesn't make the task any easier. Given
this, I would
prefer to give everyone as much information and as many tools as possible.

Rich Lemert




Matt

in article , Joe Young at
wrote on 4/18/04 4:36 AM:


"Philip Sondericker" wrote in message
...
in article , Dave Stadt at
wrote on 4/17/04 7:11 PM:


"Philip Sondericker" wrote in message
...
in article , C J Campbell at
wrote on 4/17/04 11:37 AM:

If Jefferson is mentioned in public schools at all, it
is
to highlight the shameful and oppressive past of the white male
dictators
that established the United States. That is all most modern grade
school
kids know about Jefferson.

This must be a relatively recent develepment, because I for one can't
recall
ever being taught any such thing. You're basically just making this up,
aren't you?

You obviously have no idea what is being taught in the liberal run
education
system in this country.

"If Jefferson is mentioned in public schools at all, it is to highlight
the
shameful and oppressive past of the white male dictators that established
the United States. That is all most modern grade school kids know about
Jefferson."

Would anyone care to cite some proof of the above statement?


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).

"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...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

in article , C J Campbell at
wrote on 4/18/04 8:11 AM:


"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.

He didn't say "stolen". He said "taken". I'm a businessman myself, and I
wouldn't have any money if other people didn't give me theirs.

It is astounding that liberals, who claim to be
intellectuals, cannot see the blatant fallacy behind this argument.

Here we have hysterical generalizations, hyperbole and simply not reading
something correctly.