Pilot's Political Orientation

"Judah" wrote in message
...

The Airline pilot, who flies back and forth across the country twice a
day, uses 100 hours of ATC time in about a week.


Oh, I think you're a bit high there.



If I remember correctly (as quoted by the AOPA) there are
about 250,000 100-hour per year GA planes.


AOPA puts the general aviation fleet at about 205,000 aircraft, and the
average time per aircraft per year at 144 hours.



There are equally as many 100-hour per week Airlines.


Oh, no, it's not even close to that. AOPA puts the airline share of the
215,000 strong civil US fleet at 4%, that would be about 8600 aircraft.



The only real way to fairly and equitably split the cost of the system is
to charge for the time used. It is probably not really practical to do
that for a variety of reasons. But gas consumption probably delivers a
good measure of time a plane spends in the air, and as such using the
system, it is probably a fairly good place to put the tax to cover that
cost.


What makes that fair? The system wasn't created to serve general aviation,
it was created to serve the airlines. If general aviation didn't exist the
system would still be needed to serve the airlines and it wouldn't be much
smaller than it is now.

"Judah" wrote in message
...

Freedom for who?


For everyone.



And from what?


The natural constraints on freedom are other people's freedom.

"S Green" wrote in message
...

Execution in the name of revenge is not morally acceptable either.


Agreed, and no reasonable person advocates that.



Deliberately killing a person is murder and is a moral crime.


Not always. Killing another person in self-defense is not murder. Capital
punishment id not murder.

Tarver Engineering wrote:

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



Please point out those parts of "Origin of Species" that are false.
Chances are you'll either find out that scientists have already recognized


the


error,



Yes, nearly all of science knows Darwin's "Origin of species" is completely
false. That is why I provided you with two other brances of science:
Physics demonstrating a theory with repeatable and demonstrable resilts
applied to Cosmology, Geology falses Darwin's "Origin of Species" with hard
physical evidence and then from within the church of Darwin itself, Jay
Gould replaces Darwin's work with a thirteen hundred page treatise trying to
reconcile the obvious undisputable falshoods within Darwin's "Origin of
species". All of the scientific community knows what is being taught in
school is a lie.

Stop teaching Darwin's religion as science in public schools.

So far, nothing in your response above even comes close to answering
my questions.
I asked you to point out where you believe Darwinian theory is in error.
You respond with
a bunch of hand-waving that claims "this group shows its false, and that
group shows its
false, and blah-blah-blah." Since I don't accept the "because they said
so" argument from
people who count (such as those in political office), why do you think
I'll accept that
argument from someone I don't know from Caesar?

If you're unwilling to tell us where you think Darwinian theory is
wrong, are you at least
willing to tell us what you think Darwinian theory says?

By the way, while repeatability is a significant component of a
scientific theory, its not
a necessary or even a sufficient component. Otherwise, there could be
_no_ theories
of the universe. The _necessary_ and _sufficient_ condition required in
order for a
hypothesis to become a scientific theory is that the hypothesis must
lead to predictions
that can be proven false. "The moon is made of green cheese", for
example, meets
this test. You can prove the theory wrong by going to the moon and
seeing what it's
made of.

Can your favorite creation "theory" predict the development of
anti-biotic resistant
bacteria?

Rich Lemert

"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.



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.


You obviously misunderstood the discussion.

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?



Those users who use it in conjunction with their business or perhaps
for an Angel flight, etc, indeed contriubute to the economy.


Don't the users who fly solely for recreation also contribute to the
economy?



The guy who uses it to fly for $100 hamburgers (or, are they $200
hamburgers these days?) is getting subsidized without his flight
contributing very much to the economy.


How is he getting subsidized?

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

"Otis Winslow" wrote in message
.. .


I would hardly call Libertarians very conservative. While the
free market position could lead one to think that ... the general
approach of us being able to do our own thing as long as we
don't interfere with others exercising that same freedom is a
long way away from the ultra conservative approach. They want
to control our every action and make our moral judgements for
us.




It is liberals that wish to control other people.

The conservative viewpoint: "With very few exceptions, we don't give a
damn why
you're pregnant. The fact is that you are, and therefore if you do
anything other than
carry that child to term you are a baby-killer. We won't _force_ you to
do so, of
course, we'll just make your life (and that of everyone around you) hell
if you don't."

The liberal viewpoint: "We don't really care why you're pregnant,
that's not
important any more. The fact is that you are, and you may have to make a
very difficult choice. All we can do for you now is tell you what
choices are
available and what there probably consequences are. The choice, however, is
something only you can make."

Now, why do I have a problem believing that conservatives aren't
interested in
controlling others?

Rich Lemert

"darwin smith" wrote in message
link.net...

The conservative viewpoint: "With very few exceptions, we don't
give a damn why you're pregnant. The fact is that you are, and
therefore if you do anything other than carry that child to term you
are a baby-killer. We won't _force_ you to do so, of course, we'll
just make your life (and that of everyone around you) hell if you
don't."

The liberal viewpoint: "We don't really care why you're pregnant,
that's not important any more. The fact is that you are, and you
may have to make a very difficult choice. All we can do for you
now is tell you what choices are available and what there
probably consequences are. The choice, however, is something
only you can make."

Now, why do I have a problem believing that conservatives aren't
interested in controlling others?


It appears it's because you are a person of low intelligence. You have the
liberals telling her she has complete control over the baby, even to the
point of killing it, and the conservatives telling her she does not have
that control.

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

"L Smith" wrote in message
hlink.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.

2) This is indeed the traditional definition currently accepted in the
western world. It is
far from a universal definition, though. Until fairly recently Mormon's
believed firmly
in polygamy, and polygamy is still a common practice in much of the
world (the general
rule being that you had to be able to support the entire family if you
elected to have more
than one wife). And IIRC, polyandry is an acceptable approach in parts
of Tibet and
other areas where life is considered so hard, more than one "wage
earner" is required
to support a family.

3) Many traditions are good, but that doesn't mean they should be
unchangable. All
traditions should be examined periodically to see if they still make sense.

4) If we accept your definition, then the question we need to ask is
"what is your view
on same-sex civil unions?" This is, after all, what's usually being
referred to when most
people are talking about "gay marriage".

Rich Lemert

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

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

I'd love for this to be so, but the evidence claims otherwise. Why is a
conservative administration against the right of people to marry? I can
see their rational in the case of abortion, even if I don't agree. But not
even a single cell is harmed if a same-sex couple marries. Why would
anyone care?

Why, under a supposedly conservative administration, have we American
citizens held in violation of the law merely by defining them as soldiers
in a foreign army? Yes, deal with them. But deal with them in a fashion
consistent with our values...or give up the claim to being "for freedom".

Perhaps your definition of "conservative" is correct in theory. But like
the old Soviet Union's ridiculous claim to "communism", the practical truth
of our current administration is far from that theory. Tariffs on Steel?
From a "conservative administration"? Not likely!

- Andrew